In a significant ruling on sentencing jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a convict sentenced to “life imprisonment for a fixed term” of a specific number of years without remission is entitled to be released immediately upon completing that term. The bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, clarified that such a convict is not required to make an application for remission of their sentence to the Sentence Review Board, as the judicially determined sentence has been fully served.
The Court declared the continued incarceration of the appellant, Sukhdev Yadav, a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case, beyond his 20-year fixed term as “illegal.” It directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to all States and Union Territories to identify and release any convicts who have remained in jail beyond their sentence period.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan, challenging a Delhi High Court order dated November 25, 2024, which had rejected his plea for furlough.
Yadav was convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with the murder of Nitish Katara. His co-convicts in the case were Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav.
While the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, the Delhi High Court, in an appeal decided on February 6, 2015, modified the sentence for the offence of murder. The High Court imposed a sentence of: “Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and fine of Rs. 10,000/-.” This sentence was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2016 judgment, with the minor modification that all sentences would run concurrently.
The present proceedings began after Yadav’s application for furlough was rejected by prison authorities and subsequently by the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, on March 9, 2025, the appellant completed 20 years of actual incarceration. This led the Court to consider the substantive legal question of whether he was entitled to be released upon completion of this period.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul, appearing for the appellant Sukhdev Yadav, argued that the appellant had served the entirety of the sentence imposed by the High Court, a fact acknowledged by the State. He contended that upon completion of the 20-year sentence, the appellant was entitled to be released forthwith. Mr. Mridul distinguished between release on completion of a sentence and remission, submitting that remission is considered when the sentence is not yet complete. He argued that forcing the appellant to now apply for remission would be illegal and would tantamount to an executive body, the Sentence Review Board, sitting in judgment over a final judicial order from the High Court and Supreme Court.
Conversely, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, for the State of Delhi, and Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, for the complainant, argued that the appellant’s sentence was one of “life imprisonment.” They contended that the 20-year period was merely the minimum term to be served without any remission. According to the respondents, upon completing these 20 years, the appellant was obligated to apply to the Sentence Review Board, which would then consider whether to grant remission of his life sentence. They submitted that the appellant could not be released “straightaway” without such an order.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court framed the central issue as: “…whether, an accused/convict who has completed his ‘life imprisonment for a fixed term’ such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence.”
The bench embarked on a detailed analysis of sentencing law, beginning with the meaning of “life imprisonment,” which, as per settled law like Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra, means imprisonment for the whole of the convict’s natural life, subject to remission or commutation.
However, the Court traced the evolution of jurisprudence where, as an alternative to the death penalty, constitutional courts began imposing fixed-term sentences. It heavily relied on the three-judge bench decision in Swamy Shraddananda (2) vs. State of Karnataka and the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan. These judgments established the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to specify a minimum term of imprisonment (e.g., 20, 25, or 30 years) that a life convict must serve without the benefit of remission, in order to make the punishment proportionate to the crime. The Court noted that in Sriharan, the Constitution Bench affirmed this power, stating, “…the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict’s life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.”
Applying this principle to the appellant’s sentence, the Court interpreted the High Court’s order meticulously. It held that the specific wording—”Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission”—meant that the sentence of life imprisonment was judicially determined to be a fixed term of 20 years.
The phrase “without consideration of remission,” the Court clarified, meant that the appellant was denied the right to seek remission during the 20-year period (for instance, after completing 14 years as per Section 433-A of the CrPC). It did not imply that he had to seek remission after completing the 20 years. The Court reasoned: “If that was so, the High Court would have specified it in those terms.”
The Court found the respondents’ argument that the Sentence Review Board must now vet the release to be wholly untenable. It made a crucial observation: “In fact, the Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over what has been judicially determined as the sentence by the High Court which has been affirmed by this Court.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that since the appellant had completed his 20-year actual sentence on March 9, 2025, his continued detention thereafter was illegal. The Court noted that its interim order granting him furlough on June 25, 2025, was passed after he had already completed his sentence.
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to be released on March 10, 2025, and directed that he need not surrender after his furlough period expires, provided he is not wanted in any other case.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court laid down a definitive legal principle, stating: “…we hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
As a concluding measure, the Court directed its Registry to circulate the judgment to the Home Secretaries of all States and Union Territories and to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to ensure that any other convicts who have over-served their sentences are identified and released immediately.
