Life Sentence Means Life – No Automatic Release After 20 Years: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for Prisoner’s Release After 30 Years in Jail

“Remissions are not a matter of right for life convicts; they merely constitute administrative mechanisms—Release requires express order under Section 432 CrPC” – Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the daughter of a prisoner convicted in the infamous 1993 Guntur bus burning case, seeking his release after over 30 years of incarceration. The Court held that a life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, and clarified that no automatic remission or release is permissible unless the government exercises its powers under Section 432 CrPC or Articles 72/161 of the Constitution.

The petition was filed by S. Swapna, daughter of Chalapathi Rao, who was convicted along with another person for setting fire to a bus in 1993, killing 23 passengers, including a six-year-old girl. He was initially sentenced to death by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, a sentence later confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

However, in 1998, the President of India commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72. Since then, the convict has remained in custody for over three decades.

Claiming reformation and citing Rule 320(A) of the A.P. Prison Rules, 1979, the petitioner argued that the convict’s sentence should be deemed completed after 20 years, and further highlighted his good conduct, educational progress, and artistic contributions in jail.

Does life imprisonment equate to 20 years of incarceration?

The Court clarified that the belief that life sentence ends after 20 years is legally incorrect. Relying on precedents including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, Sangeet v. State of Haryana, and Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, it observed: “A sentence of life means a sentence of incarceration of the prisoner for the remainder of his natural life… Neither Section 57 IPC nor Rule 320(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules reduce that sentence to 20 years.”

Can remission under prison rules or executive orders substitute formal release under Section 432 CrPC?

The Bench ruled: “Remissions granted as per jail rules are not substitutes for statutory or constitutional remission… Remission under prison rules may be considered by the Advisory Board, but actual release can only be ordered by the Government under Section 432 of CrPC.”

Does the remission policy at the time of conviction govern release, or the one existing at the time of application?

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the remission policy applicable in 1995 should govern, the Court held:

“There is no vested or indefeasible right in a convict to claim remission… Policies evolve, and the law mandates adherence to current rules unless an express right is conferred.”

On the issue of parole, the Court found that while the prisoner had been released on a few emergency paroles (e.g., to attend family funerals), his applications for regular parole were consistently rejected on administrative and security grounds.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s claim that the prisoner had engaged in education and painting, but did not find that these grounds overrode the gravity of the offence or the legal prerequisites for release.

Referring to the Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan judgment, the Court remarked: “The facts of this case—particularly the heinous nature of the crime and the specific exclusions under G.O.Ms.No.8—do not permit mechanical application of the principles laid down in Asfaq.”

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held: “There is no automatic release on completion of 20 or 25 years in prison, especially when the sentence of death has been commuted to life. Release must be preceded by express government order under Section 432 CrPC, and even remission must comply with procedural and substantive safeguards.”

“The petitioner’s plea that the prisoner be deemed released after 30 years cannot be sustained in law.”

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling underscores the non-automatic nature of life imprisonment and reiterates that remission or premature release is a matter of executive discretion, not a convict’s right. The judgment draws a clear line between administrative leniency and judicially imposed punishment, reinforcing the need for a balanced approach grounded in law and public interest.

Date of Decision: 9th April 2025