Life term or a living death: The era of incercaration bar parole in Bangladesh

Sadiya S. Silvee, Research Assistant at Bangladesh Institute of Law & Int’l Affairs : 
Impris-onment for life is known to be a sentence in prison for a crime under which convicted person is to remain in prison for a time equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years [Section 57 of the Penal Code (PC)]. However, dissonance regarding the period of ‘imprisonment for life mentioned under Section 57 PC, mainly because of the imprecise elucidation of ‘remission and commutation,’ exists in our criminal justice system.
The Appellate Division (AD) in Ataur Mridha vs. State [Criminal Appeal No. 15-16/2010, decided on 14 February 2017] stepping into the discord interpreted the term ‘imprisonment for life’ under Section 53 of the PC by stating, “Life imprisonment within the meaning of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the PC means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.”
Analyzing the judgment indicates that our AD has adopted the approach taken by the Indian Judiciary. Does it mean when a convict is punished with ‘imprisonment for life’ the person shall not be allowed with parole?
In our criminal justice system, Section 55 of PC allows the Government to commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 20 years without the consent of the convict. A similar provision also exists in Section 402 of the CrPC stating that the Section will not affect the provisions of Section 54 or Section 55 of PC. Though these sections appear as Government’s initiative for the convict, it is also a formal mechanism for convicts to request for parole. In fact, this right of the convict is impliedly protected under Article 49 of the Constitution and Section 55A of PC.
Analysis Article 49 of our Constitution and Section 55A of PC indicates three facts. First, the President has the power the grant pardons, and also to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority. Secondly, under Section 55 of PC Government can commute the punishment for imprisonment not exceeding 20 years, however, the President has power under the Constitution to remit, suspend or commute the punishment for imprisonment below and above 20 years , i.e. imprisonment for life. Lastly, a convict has the right to apply for remit, suspend or commutation of any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority not only to the Government but also to the President.
This implies that a convict owns ‘the right to parole.’ However, this also needs to be understood that ‘the right to parole’ is not an absolute right rather a restricted right. Which means, only under the fulfillment of certain grounds a convict can enjoy the right. But the question arises what those grounds are? Unfortunately, our country has no guidelines in this regard. Now, the question might arise whether there is any possibility of abuse of power in this regard?
According to reports during the period between 1972 and 2008 only 4 pardon applications were granted which increased to around 26 between 2009 to 2013. And this year pardon is granted to Tofayel Ahmed Joseph. So, if the pardons were granted to so many people in a year then, probably its might have been contended as an amount to wrong use of power. But pending of so many applications and less amount of grants indicates that there is either negligence or violation of rights. In fact, before the judgment of Ataur Mridha vs. State, there were many convicts who enjoyed their ‘right to parole’ after spending a certain period in prison without even applying for remit, suspension or commutation. But, all the convicts punished with imprisonment of life shall have to apply for remit, suspension or commutation of their sentence and wait for the day when their applications will successful grab the attention of the legal authority.