Right to live with dignity cannot be deprived merely because a person is convicted: Calcutta High Court

The right of an individual to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because one is convicted, the Calcutta High Court recently observed while ordering the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board (WBSSRB) to reconsider the request of a woman to grant the benefit of premature release to her husband [Mahuya Chakraborty vs State of West Bengal]..Single-judge Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya noted that the petitioner's husband has already spent more than two decades in prison. "The right of the petitioner's husband under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because he was convicted. He has spent a considerable period behind the bars. There cannot be any double punishment on the petitioner by refusing to reintegrate her husband in mainstream society even if he is otherwise eligible," the Court said in the January 5 order. .The Court was hearing a plea filed by a woman challenging the decision of the WBSSRB which had refused to grant premature release to her husband, who is presently serving life sentence. The petitioner challenged the WBSSRB decision primarily on two grounds - one that the committee to take a decision on premature release was not properly constituted and two that the committee did not consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court in deciding the plea. The petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court has through various judgments categorically held that the aim and ultimate goal of imprisonment even in the most serious of crimes, is reformative after the offender undergoes a sufficiently long spell of punishment through imprisonment. .In his order, Justice Bhattacharyya noted that it is settled law that the aim of punishment in modern criminal jurisprudence is reformative and not retributive.The single-judge further noted that the WBSSRB failed to call for a report from the concerned prison authorities on the conduct of the convict while in jail and also his present behaviour."That apart, we do not find from the records anything to indicate whether the petitioner participated in any social productive work in the meantime and/or has undergone any further education or qualification while in custody," the Court said. It further noted that since the WBSSRB was not properly constituted, it is all the more necessary that the request for premature release is reconsidered by a properly constituted Board. With these observations, the Court disposed of the petition with a directive to the WBSSRB to reconsider the request for premature release of the convict. .Advocates Kaushik Gupta, Anirban Tarafder, Daniel Sarkar and Sahel Tusu appeared for the Petitioner. Advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay and Arka Kr Nag represented the State. .[Read Order]