Regardless of arithmetical inconsistencies, it is not contested, Joseph has completed over 26 years of actual imprisonment. The latitude Constitution gives to Executive, under Articles 72 and 162, in regard to matters such as remission, commutation, et cetera, cannot be caged or boxed in form of guidelines, which are inflexible. The practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on nature of crime committed in distant past, would be to crush life force out of such individual. There is peculiarity in continuing to imprison one who committed a crime years earlier, who might have changed totally since. Regardless of morality of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. What is achieved by continuing to punish those who recognise wrongness of what they have done? It is tempting to say, they are no longer same. Yet, insistence of guidelines to not look beyond red lines drawn and continue in denial of real impact of prison good behaviour, results in violation of Article 14. It not only crushes spirit, and instils despair, but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. Court is of opinion, it would be appropriate to direct release of Joseph with immediate effect.

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Joseph v. State of Kerala, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 520 of 2022].