Recently, the Supreme Court held that when a policy exists for considering cases of permanent remission, the state is obligated to assess all eligible convicts under such a policy, irrespective of whether an application has been submitted. The Court emphasised that failure to do so would be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. This ruling arose in the context of a suo moto case concerning bail policies, particularly addressing whether the government can grant remission without a formal request from the convict.
The case pertained to the remission policies of various states and Union Territories (UTs) and whether the authorities are duty-bound to review eligible convicts for premature release without requiring an application. The matter revolved around the interpretation of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which outline the framework for granting remission.
The petitioner contended that state governments and UTs that have implemented remission policies must proactively evaluate eligible convicts rather than making remission conditional upon a formal application. It was argued that such an approach ensures uniformity in the exercise of executive powers and prevents arbitrary exclusions.
The Supreme Court observed that where a government policy prescribes eligibility conditions for premature release, it becomes a mandatory duty of the state to consider all convicts meeting the criteria. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, underscored that denying remission solely on the ground that no application was filed would contravene the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in the Constitution. The Court stated, “Such conduct on the part of the State will be discriminatory and arbitrary, amounting to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court further directed states and UTs without existing remission policies to formulate one within two months. It held that prison authorities must regularly compile lists of eligible convicts and forward them to the competent government for due consideration. While granting remission, the Court noted, “Reasonable conditions can be imposed; however, they must not be vague, oppressive, or impractical. The objective must be to ensure the convict's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”
The Court also stressed that in determining conditions for remission, authorities must consider the nature of the crime, the convict’s past criminal record, and public safety concerns. “The impact on society and the victims of the offence must be factored in. Conditions must be structured to ensure that the convict does not relapse into criminal activities and is properly rehabilitated,” the bench observed.
On the issue of cancellation of remission, the Court held that any such order must be accompanied by recorded reasons, as it directly affects the convict’s right to liberty. “Since remission grants liberty, its cancellation cannot be arbitrary. The convict must be issued a show-cause notice outlining the grounds for cancellation and provided an opportunity to respond,” the Court ruled.
The Top Court reaffirmed that the state’s obligation under a remission policy is non-discretionary and must be uniformly applied to all eligible convicts. It directed authorities to ensure strict adherence to procedural fairness and constitutional principles in implementing remission policies.
Picture Source :
