The Supreme Court on Monday advised against imposing “onerous conditions” on life convicts when considering their early release under remission policies. During a session presided over by Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, the bench emphasized that remission conditions should not be so burdensome that they render the relief ineffectual.
The observations came as the court deliberated on various aspects concerning the remission of convicts serving life sentences across Indian prisons, ultimately reserving its verdict. “The conditions for the grant of remission should be straightforward and manageable to ensure that the benefits intended by remission are not negated,” the bench stated. It highlighted the importance of clear guidelines that allow violations to be easily identified and afford convicts the right to a hearing if their remission is revoked due to breaches.
The Supreme Court also tackled whether state governments are obligated to review applications for permanent remission from eligible life convicts, even if no formal requests have been made. Another key issue was the necessity of documenting reasons for the rejection of such applications.
Addressing the court, senior advocate and amicus curiae Liz Mathew called for standardizing the remission processes across states to ensure justice, fairness, and the rehabilitative aim of India’s criminal justice system. Mathew stressed that while the power to grant remission lies with state governments and is discretionary, being considered for remission should be a procedural entitlement, contingent upon meeting specific criteria.
“Grant of remission is not a vested right but being considered for it is, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,” Mathew articulated. She argued that the conditions set during remission should be clear and tailored toward the convict’s rehabilitation rather than punitive in nature.
Mathew proposed that states take into account factors such as the convict’s behavior, health, family circumstances, and the nature of their crime when considering remission. She also highlighted the disparities in remission policies across different states, a concern previously raised by the National Human Rights Commission.
Furthermore, Mathew suggested that violations of remission conditions should be adjudicated under due legal processes to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice. She advocated for state governments to proactively identify convicts eligible for remission, promoting a rights-based approach to the remission process that aligns with India’s commitments to justice and human dignity.
