Speaking Order Is Not a Mere Formality—It Is a Constitutional Necessity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Rejection of Life Convict’s Premature Release

“Liberty cannot be curtailed by cryptic executive orders—State must speak through reason, not ritual” –  In a significant ruling impacting the rights of life convicts and the jurisprudence on premature release, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 15 October 2025, set aside the Punjab Government’s rejection of premature release of life convict Ramji, declaring the impugned executive order dated 17.12.2024 as unreasoned, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that executive authorities cannot decide matters involving personal liberty with mechanical reliance on committee opinions or judicial observations, without application of mind or reasoning. The Court directed the State to pass a fresh, reasoned decision within four weeks, and imposed ₹25,000 in costs for administrative delay and lack of diligence.

“Liberty Cannot Be Denied by an Inscrutable Face of the State”: Non-Speaking Order Held Legally Unsustainable

Ramji, a life convict incarcerated since 1999 following his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of his premature release plea despite completing over 25 years of incarceration including remissions, which made him squarely eligible under the Punjab Government’s 1991 Premature Release Policy.

The State Government, vide order dated 17.12.2024, rejected his claim, citing opposition by the Presiding Judge and a Committee, without disclosing any independent assessment or reasoning. The Court found this approach constitutionally flawed, holding:

“An order affecting liberty cannot rest on the ipse dixit of authority—it must disclose the reasoning that led to the conclusion.”

“Premature Release Policies Are Not Illusions—They Bind the State and Create Legitimate Expectation”

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that Punjab’s 1991 Premature Release Policy (Clause C of Para 1(1)) entitled convicts to release after 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years with remission. Ramji had served over 17 years in actual custody and more than 25 years with remission.

Despite this, his claim was rejected without any reference to the policy criteria, or reasons why his otherwise eligible case was unfit. The Court stressed that:

“The policies framed by the State for premature release are not empty formalities—they are subordinate legislation that bind executive discretion and give rise to a convict’s legitimate expectation of fair treatment.”

The Court relied on Sharafat Ali v. State of U.P., (2022) 13 SCC 186 and State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu, (2021) 9 SCC 292, reiterating the principle that premature release must be adjudged by the policy applicable on the date of conviction, and not arbitrarily modified or ignored.

“Administrative Silence and Delay Defeats Justice—State’s Lackadaisical Conduct Attracts Judicial Censure and Costs”

The High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Punjab Government’s administrative apathy, documenting that Ramji’s case took more than 18 months to reach the competent authority, owing to repeated inter-departmental lapses and uncoordinated file movement. The Court found:

“This case is an un-rooting illustration of official torpor and unwillingness to discharge solemn responsibilities. The lethargic conduct of the State calls for real and veritable costs.”

Accordingly, ₹25,000 was imposed on the State, payable to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

“State Cannot Delegate Constitutional Responsibility to Committees—Speaking Order Is the Minimum Mandate”

The State had relied solely on the objections of a Review Committee and the Presiding Judge, without stating any independent reasons. The Court termed this a failure of legal reasoning and held that no executive order affecting liberty can survive judicial scrutiny unless it reflects application of mind and adherence to natural justice.

Justice Sumeet Goel invoked the authoritative precedent of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, stating:

“A non-speaking order is not merely procedurally flawed—it is substantively unconstitutional when it denies personal liberty without reasons. The requirement to record reasons excludes arbitrariness and is a facet of natural justice.”

The Court also referenced Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 370, which cautioned against over-reliance on judicial recommendations that ignore post-conviction conduct:

“Presiding Judge's opinion is based on record at time of conviction, not the reformative journey of the prisoner. His role is limited, and cannot substitute full administrative reasoning.”

“Liberty Must Be Protected Not Just By Law, But By Procedure That Is Fair and Reasoned”: Constitutional Mandate of Article 21 Reinforced

Calling personal liberty a sacrosanct constitutional right, the Court declared that any statutory discretion under Section 432 CrPC (now Section 473 BNSS) must conform to the touchstone of reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness under Article 21. The Court held:

“The procedure under Article 21 must not be illusory or mechanical—it must reflect fair application of mind and serve the higher purpose of justice.”

The Court reminded the State that even administrative decisions affecting liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, and not reduced to a ritual of committee endorsements.

“Reformative Justice Must Not Be Rendered Illusory by Bureaucratic Indifference”

Justice Goel also noted that the impugned order failed to consider any of the reformative factors, such as conduct in prison, work done, likelihood of reoffending, or socio-economic circumstances—parameters outlined in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, where the Supreme Court held:

“The authorities must examine whether the crime was individual or impacted society at large, whether reformation is evident, and whether continued incarceration serves any meaningful purpose.”

In this case, none of these factors were addressed—making the rejection order mechanical and unfit to survive judicial review.

The High Court issued the following binding directions:

• The rejection order dated 17.12.2024 is set aside.

• The Government of Punjab is directed to reconsider Ramji’s case within four weeks, by passing a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order in line with applicable policies and legal standards.

• The State is directed to deposit ₹25,000 as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

• The Home Secretary, Punjab, shall file a compliance affidavit within six weeks, failing which punitive consequences may follow.

“The voice of the State, when it speaks against liberty, must be loud in its reasoning, not silent in submission to bureaucratic forms.”

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025