The Kerala government's recent decision to grant premature release to only one of four long-term convicts recommended by a jail advisory committee has ignited a fresh debate on the consistency and fairness of its constitutional remission powers. The move has brought renewed scrutiny to how the state exercises its authority under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Cabinet's Narrow Decision Amid Multiple Options
An order issued on January 1 reveals that the state cabinet, in its meeting on December 17, 2025, chose to release only Rajesh, a life convict in a political murder case. This decision came despite the Kannur Central Prison and Correctional Home advisory committee recommending the premature release of four convicts. The cabinet had multiple options before it, including releasing three life convicts together while excluding a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the final minutes show the cabinet decided to consider only one suggestion, advising the governor to grant remission solely to Rajesh.
The government invoked Article 161 of the Constitution to remit the remaining sentence of Rajesh, who was convicted under Sections 302 (murder) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code. The official order stated the decision followed an examination of the jail committee's recommendations and a favourable report from the probation officer, in accordance with Rule 470 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.
Contrasting Fates of Three Life Convicts
The advisory committee had originally recommended four prisoners: Pradeep, Balasubrahmanyan, Rajesh, and Madhavan. The first three were life convicts for murder, each having completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, extending to roughly 18-19 years when remission was included. The home department's summary noted that all three had adverse police reports but favourable probation officer reports. All fell into the category of long-term convicts, a group that has been at the centre of recent judicial scrutiny on remission policy.
Government files repeatedly referenced judicial rulings, including Joseph v State of Kerala and subsequent High Court judgments. These emphasize that premature release cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the offence. Instead, reformative potential and human rights considerations must guide decisions, especially for convicts who have effectively completed a deemed 20-year sentence with remission.
Grounds for Exclusion: POCSO Convict and Fine Payments
The convict treated as substantively different was Madhavan, serving a five-year rigorous imprisonment term for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl. As of June 30, 2024, he had completed only about two years and eight months of actual imprisonment and had also failed to pay the court-imposed fine. The home department justified his exclusion on specific procedural and victim-protection grounds. The police report in his case was strongly adverse, warning that early release could erode public confidence in the justice system, instil fear in the victim and her family, and carry a risk of reoffending.
The controversy deepened when the file turned to the issue of fine payment and recent jurisprudence to justify selective release among the three life convicts. A draft note acknowledged that releasing Pradeep and Balasubrahmanyan along with Rajesh was a viable option, subject to satisfaction of fine and default sentence conditions. Yet, the final decision isolated only Rajesh for relief.
This outcome has raised questions, as all three life convicts shared a similar legal profile: long incarceration, adverse police opinion, favourable probation assessment, and eligibility under the reformative jurisprudence cited in the file. The decision has effectively privileged the convict in a political murder case over two non-political convicts in otherwise comparable legal positions, casting a spotlight on the government's application of its remission powers.
