Rajiv case convict seeks release

A similar representation made by Payas in December 2004 was ignored by authorities on the ground that it could not be considered without a report from the Probationary Officer of his locality.

Payas said as the probationary officer concerned in his case was in Sri Lanka, the requirement was 8216;8216;unfair and unreasonable8217;8217; and 8216;8216;impossible8217;8217; to comply with. He argued that he could not be denied premature release on this ground alone and failure to consider his case would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The authorities only had to consider whether the convict would commit a crime in future and if he had not lost his potentiality for committing a crime and whether any purpose would be served in continuing to confine the convict further, Payas pointed out, seeking a direction to the state government to consider his case for premature release in accordance with law.