Allahabad HC Quashes Governor's Rejection of Life Convict's Premature Release, Orders Fresh Decision Within One Month
A Division Bench found the State's rejection of Adil @ Seeran's premature release proposal ignored the five-factor Laxman Naskar guidelines and over-relied on the convicting judge's report.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a State Government order dated 12 August 2025 rejecting the premature release of Adil @ Seeran, a life convict who has been continuously incarcerated since 8 December 2005. A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, with the judgment delivered by Justice J.J. Munir, held that the impugned order failed to apply the five criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) v. State of West Bengal and another, (2000) 7 SCC 626, and that it leaned too heavily on the convicting judge's report without examining the broader social, psychological and family circumstances of the convict. The court directed the State Government to pass fresh orders within one month, on the basis of the guidance set out in the judgment.
The Conviction and Two Decades of Incarceration
Adil @ Seeran was tried alongside co-accused Sufiyan, Smt. Razia and Biru Singh in Sessions Trial No. 957 of 2006, arising from Crime No. 364 of 2005, registered at Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad. The charges were under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Adil, Sufiyan and Smt. Razia of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. A concurrent sentence of ten years was imposed for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 3,000. Biru Singh was acquitted.
The convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1824 of 2009 before this court. A Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 3 August 2018, acquitted Smt. Razia but upheld the conviction and sentence of Adil and Sufiyan. Adil sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, but the petition was dismissed on 16 September 2020.
As of 13 November 2025, the petitioner had served 19 years, 11 months and 6 days without remission, and 24 years, 6 months and 28 days with remission. He has been continuously in prison since 8 December 2005 and was never admitted to bail, parole or home leave.
The Series of Proposals and Their Rejection
The petitioner's case went through multiple rounds of consideration under the State's various release mechanisms. A Form-A proposal for release under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 — available after 14 years of imprisonment without remission — was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, and ultimately rejected by the State Government on 19 May 2021.
A first proposal under the permanent policy framed under Article 161 of the Constitution was sent on 1 June 2022 and rejected by the Governor on 24 February 2023. A second proposal was sent on 8 March 2025 (International Women's Day) and forwarded by the Jail Headquarters on 27 December 2024. It was rejected by the State Government on 12 August 2025 — the order challenged in this petition — and communicated to the petitioner on 25 August 2025.
Separately, a 14-years nominal roll proposal was also moving through the system. The Jail Headquarters, by their letter dated 22 May 2024, sought a complete nominal roll proposal with the opinion of the presiding judge in pursuance of a Supreme Court order dated 8 January 2024 in Bilkis Yaqoob Rasool v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022. The Jail Authorities forwarded the proposal, accompanied by the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Allahabad, to the Jail Headquarters on 12 July 2024.
The petitioner also pointed to the disparity that his co-convict Sufiyan had been prematurely released on 29 January 2021, while he continued to languish in jail. Additionally, a third proposal for release on International Human Rights Day, 10 December 2025, had been forwarded by the Jail Authorities to the Jail Headquarters vide letter dated 1 October 2025.
Five Mechanisms, Two Sources of Power
The Division Bench set out at length the five distinct mechanisms for early release in Uttar Pradesh, as described by the State itself before the Supreme Court in Surendra alias Sunda v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 804. The court identified two broad sources of authority underpinning all five mechanisms: statutory powers of the State Government, and the constitutional powers of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution.
The three statutory mechanisms are: (i) release under the Release on Probation Rules after 14 years without remission (Form-A); (ii) nominal roll release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Paragraph 180 of the U.P. Jail Manual, 2022, also available after 14 years without remission; and (iii) infirmity roll release under Section 432 of the Code read with Paragraphs 177, 178 and 179 of the U.P. Jail Manual, for cases of old age or terminal illness as assessed by a Medical Board. The two constitutional mechanisms are: (iv) the standing policy of premature release framed under Article 161, available for those who have undergone 16 years without remission and 20 years with remission, subject to specified conditions; and (v) a general mercy petition to the Governor under Article 161, for which no minimum period of incarceration is required.
Having mapped the mechanisms, the bench found that the impugned order — passed on the second proposal forwarded with the convicting judge's report dated 2 July 2024 — substantially concerned the nominal roll mechanism, traceable to Section 432 of the Code read with Paragraph 180 of the U.P. Jail Manual. Though the order expressed itself as a decision of the Governor under Article 161, the court characterised that reference as one “by courtesy” that did not alter the essential character of the exercise.
Wrong Criteria Applied to the Nominal Roll Proposal
The bench identified a foundational error in the impugned order: the State Government applied criteria from the remission policy framed under Article 161 to what was in substance a nominal roll case governed by the statutory powers under Section 432 of the Code. The court held that for nominal roll cases, the applicable criteria are those set out by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar, which the Review Committee must consider before deciding a premature release plea. Those five criteria are: (i) whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting society at large; (ii) whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime; (iii) whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime; (iv) whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any further; and (v) the socio-economic conditions of the convict's family.
Looking at the impugned order, the bench found that none of these five factors had been examined. The Government had not considered whether the crime was an individual act, had not assessed the risk of recurrence, had not examined the petitioner's potential to offend again, had not asked whether continued confinement served any fruitful purpose, and had not looked at the socio-economic conditions of the petitioner's family. The order appeared to rest substantially on the nature of the crime and the convict's conduct in jail, as reflected in the convicting judge's report.
The Weight to Be Given to the Presiding Judge's Report
The convicting judge's report dated 2 July 2024 enumerated nine instances of jail offences committed by the petitioner during incarceration, beginning on 8 November 2011 and including dates in 2016, 2018 and as recently as 6 April 2023. The bench acknowledged that the report carried significant weight, but found that several of the infractions were violations of jail discipline and possession of unauthorised items rather than acts of aggression.
More critically, the bench drew on the Supreme Court's detailed reasoning in Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, where it was held that “overemphasis on the presiding judge's opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities” renders the Government's decision on a remission application unsustainable. The Supreme Court in Rajo alias Rajwa had observed that the presiding judge's report is usually confined to the judicial record at the time of conviction and rarely engages with post-conviction conduct, earned remissions, age, health or the convict's reformative journey during incarceration.
The Allahabad bench noted that unlike the situation in Rajo alias Rajwa, the convicting judge's report here did address post-conviction jail behaviour rather than merely reiterating the facts of the crime. Even so, the bench found that the broader social and psychological dimensions — the petitioner's reintegration prospects given his age, the socio-economic position of his family, and whether any purpose was served by continued confinement after more than two decades — had not been examined at all.
Psychologist Evaluation and Holistic Consideration
Following the approach suggested in Rajo alias Rajwa, the Division Bench noted that the Government could subject the petitioner to a psychologist's evaluation to understand the possibilities of his behaviour after release. The court stated that factors informing the ultimate decision on premature release needed to be far wider than a judge's notes on the convict's jail behaviour alone.
The bench was also conscious of the risk identified in Rajo alias Rajwa that police reports adverse to release — particularly where the victims are connected to the police force — may carry latent bias that the Government must guard against when weighing the holistic case for release. While the bench stopped short of applying that concern to the specific facts here, it flagged the principle as part of the broader framework within which the Government must reconsider the matter.
Order
The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 12 August 2025 passed by the State Government. The Government was directed to pass fresh orders on the proposal for the petitioner's premature release, bearing in mind the guidance in the judgment, within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment. There was no order as to costs.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the Principal Secretary, Jail Administration and Reform Services, U.P., Lucknow.