The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment delivered in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, has held that remission of sentences must be governed by clear policies and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the rights of convicts under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution must be protected, and remission should not be granted or denied in an arbitrary manner.
Background of the Case
The case originated as a suo motu writ petition addressing the policy framework for granting remission to convicts. The Supreme Court took up the issue to ensure that state governments follow a fair and just procedure when exercising their remission powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its equivalent, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The court was assisted by amicus curiae Ms. Liz Mathew, Senior Advocate, with support from Advocate Navneet R. The issue gained significance as multiple cases had emerged where convicts were either denied remission without reason or granted remission on arbitrary grounds.
Key Legal Issues
The judgment addressed four major legal questions:
Can remission be considered without an application from the convict?
The court ruled that in states where a remission policy exists, it is the duty of the government to consider the cases of eligible convicts even without a formal application.
Citing Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the court emphasized that convicts’ rights should not depend on their ability to file applications, as many of them lack legal resources.
Can remission orders be revoked automatically upon breach of conditions?
The court ruled that remission once granted cannot be revoked arbitrarily.
It cited Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024) and held that revocation must follow principles of natural justice, requiring a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Is it mandatory to record reasons for rejecting remission applications?
The court held that all remission decisions must be reasoned, ensuring transparency and fairness.
Citing Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024), the court reaffirmed that detailed reasons must be provided for either granting or rejecting remission.
What conditions can be imposed while granting remission?
The court ruled that conditions must be reasonable, clear, and not oppressive.
It laid out broad guidelines for determining conditions, considering the nature of the crime, public safety, and rehabilitation potential of the convict.
Significant Observations of the Court
“The power to remit sentences is not an act of grace but a function of governance, which must be exercised in a fair and just manner.”
“Convicts’ liberty under Article 21 cannot be made conditional on their ability to file applications for remission.”
“Revocation of remission should not be automatic or discretionary but must follow a due process, ensuring fairness.”
“The absence of a remission policy in some states leads to arbitrary decision-making, which must be corrected immediately.”
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
All states and Union Territories without a remission policy must formulate one within two months.
State governments must consider remission for all eligible convicts as per policy, even without applications.
Remission orders—whether granting or denying—must be reasoned and communicated to convicts.
Revocation of remission must be preceded by a show-cause notice and a fair hearing.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and District Legal Services Authorities must ensure proper implementation of remission policies and provide legal aid to convicts.
The prison authorities must inform convicts about their right to challenge the denial of remission.
State Legal Services Authorities must create an online portal to track the remission status of convicts.
