When the law speaks, the courts must listen — and not selectively. That was the clear message from the Supreme Court, which ruled that judges cannot ignore or bypass the mandate of the Probation of Offenders Act when its conditions are met. The verdict puts a full stop to judicial hesitation on granting probation to eligible convicts.
The top court was decisive: once a convict fulfills the criteria under Section 4(1) of the Act, judges are not free to sidestep the option of probation. It’s not an optional detour — it’s a required consideration. “There’s no room to pretend the option isn’t there,” the bench noted, underlining the legal obligation to weigh probation before leaping to punishment.
The ruling came in a case where two appellants weren’t contesting their conviction but were seeking a chance to avoid jail under probation — a right extended to first-time offenders under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They had been sentenced to a year behind bars, despite being legally fit for probation.
The bench — comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan — didn’t hold back in criticizing the lower courts. The High Court, they said, failed to do the most basic legal homework: checking if the convicted individuals could be considered for probation. That omission, the Supreme Court ruled, amounted to a “failure of justice.”
Referencing the 2000 Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar precedent, the court reminded everyone that even after a conviction, a judge must pause and consider probation — not out of charity, but out of legal duty.
The decision keeps the conviction intact but sends the case back to the High Court — with strict instructions to reassess the probation request properly, and with the input of a probation officer’s report. In other words, no more skating past the law.
In a justice system often clogged with rigidity, the ruling breathes life into the rehabilitative intent of the Probation Act — and holds judges to it.
