Remission of Sentence Must Be Fair, Transparent, and Not a Matter of Discretion: Supreme Court

States Cannot Ignore Eligible Convicts for Remission, Even Without an Application - In a landmark decision Supreme Court of India laid down crucial guidelines on the remission of sentences and grant of bail, ensuring that the power to remit a sentence is exercised fairly, transparently, and in accordance with clear policies. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, initiated in response to arbitrary denials of remission and the continued incarceration of eligible convicts due to bureaucratic delays.

"Where there is a policy in place, it is the obligation of the State to consider cases of all eligible convicts for remission, whether or not they have made an application," the Court declared, emphasizing that justice cannot be contingent on a prisoner’s ability to navigate legal complexities.

The case stemmed from concerns over inconsistent remission policies across states, leading to a scenario where some convicts were released while others, similarly placed, languished in prison. The Court examined Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and its equivalent provision, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which govern the power of the government to remit or suspend sentences.

During the hearings, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) highlighted cases where prisoners remained in custody despite being legally entitled to consideration for remission. The Court noted that in several states, there was no systematic process for reviewing cases of eligible convicts, leading to an arbitrary and unfair exercise of power by the authorities.

Supreme Court Holds That Remission Cannot Be Arbitrary or Selective

The primary question before the Court was whether remission could be granted only upon an application from the convict or whether the government had a duty to consider all eligible cases automatically.

Referring to its earlier ruling in Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Court reiterated that "The constitutional guarantees of Articles 14 and 21 cannot be left to the mercy of a prisoner's ability to file an application". It further held that if a state has a remission policy, it is bound to apply it uniformly.

"If the State insists that relief will be granted only to those who apply, it amounts to saying that even if convicts are eligible under the policy, their cases will not be considered," the Court observed. "Such conduct is not only discriminatory but also violative of Article 14."

Court Directs All States to Formulate Clear Remission Policies

Observing that many states lacked structured remission policies, the Supreme Court directed that all states and Union Territories must formulate clear guidelines within two months. The judgment warned that without a structured policy, the power of remission could be exercised in an arbitrary and biased manner.

"The absence of a clear remission policy creates room for discretion, bias, and unfair treatment," the Court said. "Every convict, irrespective of social status, influence, or resources, must have an equal opportunity for remission based on transparent and objective criteria."

Remission Can Be Conditional, But Conditions Must Be Fair and Practical

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to impose conditions while granting remission, but cautioned that such conditions must be reasonable, enforceable, and not oppressive.

"A condition cannot be so harsh or vague that it effectively prevents a convict from reintegrating into society," the Court held. "The purpose of remission is not just to release a convict but to ensure that he is rehabilitated and does not return to criminal activity."

Referring to its decision in Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024), the Court emphasized that conditions "must be clear, practical, and capable of being complied with". Factors such as the nature of the crime, behavior in prison, risk to society, and impact on victims must be considered before setting conditions.

Revocation of Remission Cannot Be Automatic—Principles of Natural Justice Must Be Followed

The Supreme Court categorically ruled that once remission is granted, it cannot be revoked arbitrarily.

"Restoration of liberty through remission is a serious matter," the Court held. "If remission is revoked, it directly impacts a convict’s fundamental right under Article 21. Therefore, a convict must be given a fair hearing before remission is withdrawn."

Referring again to Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar (2024), the Court laid down mandatory safeguards:

• The convict must be issued a show-cause notice before remission is revoked.

• There must be a hearing where the convict can defend himself.

• Minor violations of conditions cannot justify revocation—only serious breaches can.

• A reasoned order must be passed, and the convict must be informed of his right to challenge it.

"A mere allegation that the convict has breached conditions is not enough," the Court stated. "The government must apply its mind and ensure that the decision is not disproportionate or unjust."

Government Must Provide Written Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Remission

One of the Court’s most significant rulings was that every remission order—whether granting or refusing remission—must contain clear and written reasons.

"The convict must know why his request was denied, and he must have the opportunity to challenge it," the Court said. "A non-speaking order that simply says 'denied' or 'not granted' is unacceptable."

The Court further directed that copies of rejection orders must be provided to the convict, the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), and prison authorities.

"It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the denial of remission," the judgment held.

Implementation of NALSA’s SOP on Premature Release to Be Made Mandatory

The Court took note of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by NALSA in 2022, which lays down steps for ensuring that prisoners eligible for premature release are identified and considered. It directed that this SOP must be strictly implemented in all states and Union Territories.

"Justice delayed is justice denied, and when eligible convicts remain in prison due to procedural neglect, it is a failure of the legal system itself," the Court observed.

Conclusion: A Milestone Judgment for Prison Reforms

In delivering this judgment, the Supreme Court has significantly strengthened the legal framework for remission and bail, ensuring that justice is not left to administrative whims or procedural obstacles.

Summing up its ruling, the Court declared: "Liberty cannot be conditional on an individual’s resources or ability to file applications. The State has a constitutional duty to apply its own policies fairly and equally. Any failure to do so is an infringement of fundamental rights."

This ruling is expected to bring consistency and fairness to remission decisions, ensuring that no eligible convict remains behind bars due to systemic inefficiencies.

Date of Decision: February 18, 2025