23 January 2026 Legal Updates

If Convict Remains Unreformed After 32 Years, State Has Failed Its Reformative Duty: Calcutta High Court

(a) Case Title:

• Babulal Jadab v. State

(b) Court:

• Calcutta High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• 23rd January 2026

(d) Bench:

• Justice Arijit Banerjee, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Babulal Jadab, was convicted along with his brother for a serious offence and sentenced to life imprisonment in April 1995. His conviction was upheld in appeal in 2007. By the time the writ petition was considered, the petitioner had already undergone 32 years of incarceration.

In 2022, the petitioner's case for premature release was placed before the State Sentence Review Board, which recommended his release. However, the Judicial Department rejected the recommendation, citing that the petitioner was only 51 years old and allegedly had the capacity to commit further offences.

Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court. A Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that once the Judicial Department refused approval, the Court could not interfere. The petitioner then challenged this decision before the Division Bench.

Issues Raised

• Whether premature release can be denied after 32 years of incarceration based on speculative apprehensions?
• Whether the State can reject premature release without considering the convict’s conduct and health reports?
• Whether continued incarceration reflects failure of the State’s reformative duty?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• He had completed 32 years of imprisonment, far exceeding the minimum required for consideration of premature release.
• There was no adverse conduct report from the correctional home authorities.
• His co-accused brother had already been granted premature release in 2012.
• The rejection was based on mere speculation, not on evidence or medical assessment.
• Continued incarceration violates the reformative purpose of punishment and the right to life with dignity under Article 21.

Contentions of the Respondent (State)

• The Judicial Department argued that the petitioner was physically fit and only 51 years old, implying he could still commit offences.
• It was contended that since the Judicial Department rejected the recommendation, the petitioner was not entitled to premature release.
• The State defended the decision as an exercise of administrative discretion.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

A. Reformative Theory of Punishment

• The Court emphasized that prisons are now termed “Correctional Homes”, reflecting the reformative objective of punishment.
• If a convict remains incarcerated even after 32 years, it suggests that the State has failed in its duty to reform.

B. Speculative Reasoning Is Impermissible

• The rejection was based on an assumption that the petitioner might commit further offences.
• Such reasoning was held to be speculative, not logical or evidence-based.

C. Failure to Consider Relevant Factors

• No adverse jail conduct report existed against the petitioner.
• The health report of the petitioner was not properly examined.
• Age alone cannot be a valid criterion to deny premature release.

D. Equality & Consistency

• The Court noted that the co-accused had already been granted premature release, making denial to the petitioner arbitrary.
• Unequal treatment without justification violates Article 14.

E. Article 21 – Right to Life With Dignity

• Prolonged incarceration without justification undermines human dignity.
• Punishment must aim at rehabilitation and reintegration, not endless detention.

Final Verdict

• Order of the Judicial Department rejecting premature release was quashed.
• Order of the Single Judge was set aside.
• The Principal Secretary (Judicial Department) was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s prayer for premature release afresh, in accordance with law and relevant materials.

Legal Principles Established

1. Reformative Theory of Punishment

• The purpose of imprisonment is reformation, not retribution.
• Failure to reform after decades reflects State failure, not prisoner fault.

2. Premature Release Must Be Based on Objective Criteria

Decisions must rely on:

• Jail conduct
• Health condition
• Reformative progress
• Speculative fears are impermissible.

3. Article 21 – Right to Dignity of Prisoners

• Prisoners retain the right to life with dignity.
• Indefinite incarceration without justification violates Article 21.

4. Article 14 – Non-Arbitrariness in State Action

• Similar convicts must be treated similarly.
• Arbitrary denial of premature release is unconstitutional.

5. Judicial Review of Executive Discretion

Courts can intervene when executive decisions are:

• Arbitrary
• Unreasoned
• Based on conjecture

6. Age Alone Cannot Justify Continued Incarceration

• Physical fitness or age is not a valid ground to presume criminal propensity.