- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17566 WP No. 8755 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8755 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA C/O GIRIGOWDA AGED 58 YEARS R/AT 5, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN KALYANI NAGAR, VASANTHPURA BANGALORE-560061. THE PETITIONER IS THE MOTHER OF THE CONVICT PRISONER NO. 4467 SHANKARA WHO IS SERVING LIFE SENTENCE IN BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE LIFE CONVICTS RELEASE COMMITTEE HOME DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17566 WP No. 8755 of 2026 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES NO. 9, SHESHADRI ROAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560009. 4. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE RESPONDENTS TO BE PLEASED TO ACT IN STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. HD 119 PRA 2018, BENGALURU, DATED 21.04.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PRISONER NO. 4467 SHANKARA S/O GIRIYAPPA FOR PREMATURE RELEASE IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17566 WP No. 8755 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is instituted by the mother of the convict, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of her son, namely Shankara S/o Giriyappa, for premature release in terms of the Government Order produced at Annexure–A. The grievance projected in the writ petition is that the respondents have failed to take steps for considering the case of the convict for premature release, thereby necessitating intervention of this Court. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that the case of the convict has not been rejected or kept in abeyance, but is presently pending consideration before the Advisory Board constituted for examining cases relating to premature release of prisoners. It is further submitted that the said process is underway and a decision would be taken in accordance with law upon evaluation of all relevant factors - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17566 WP No. 8755 of 2026 by the Advisory Board. Learned AGA would therefore contend that at this stage, no cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, and consequently, the writ petition is premature. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage. Admittedly, the case of the convict is seized of by the Advisory Board and is yet to culminate in a recommendation. Until such recommendation is made, the question of consideration by the State Government does not arise. It is trite that the right, if any, to seek consideration for premature release crystallizes only after the competent Advisory Board renders its recommendation. In the absence of such recommendation, the petitioner cannot assert any enforceable legal right so as to seek a writ of mandamus. Equally, the respondents cannot be said to be under any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17566 WP No. 8755 of 2026 legal obligation to consider or grant premature release independent of the statutory procedure that mandates prior consideration and recommendation by the Advisory Board. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no direction, as sought for, can be issued at this juncture. The writ petition is therefore disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedies, if so advised, after the Advisory Board takes a decision in the matter. The petitioner is directed to await the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Advisory Board. No costs. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72