Introduction
Date of the Judgment: February 18, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 239
Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Can the government grant remission to convicts without an application from them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question while examining the policies and procedures for granting bail and remission to convicts. This judgment clarifies the scope of the government’s power to remit sentences, the conditions that can be imposed, and the process for revoking remission orders. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered this judgment.
Case Background
This case originated as a suo motu writ petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, titled “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail,” which was then considered along with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 529 of 2021. The primary focus of the case was to examine the extent and limitations of the government’s power to remit sentences of convicts, either wholly or partially.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021 | Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 initiated: “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.” |
| 2021 | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 529 of 2021 was considered along with the writ petition. |
| February 18, 2025 | The Supreme Court delivers the judgment clarifying policies and procedures for granting bail and remission. |
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Section 432 of the CrPC outlines the power of the government to suspend or remit sentences.
Section 432(1) of the CrPC states:
“432. Power to suspend or remit sentences .—
(1) When any person has been sentenced to
punishment for an offence, the appropriate
Government may, at any time, without
conditions or upon any conditions which the
person sentenced accepts, suspend the
execution of his sentence or remit the whole or
any part of the punishment to which he has
been sentenced.”
The corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 473, which is substantially similar to Section 432 of the CrPC.
The power under Section 432 of the CrPC is limited by Section 433-A, which specifies that for life imprisonment sentences related to offenses punishable by death, remission cannot be granted until the convict has served at least fourteen years of actual imprisonment. There is an identical provision in Section 475 of the BNSS.
Arguments
The arguments in this case centered on several key issues regarding the grant of remission:
- Whether the government can grant remission without an application from the convict: Some argued that an application is necessary, while others contended that the government should consider all eligible cases, especially when a policy for premature release exists.
- Nature of conditions imposed during remission: The conditions should be reasonable, capable of being complied with, and aimed at rehabilitating the convict without being oppressive or vague.
- Automatic revocation of remission: Whether remission can be automatically revoked if the convict breaches the terms and conditions.
- Requirement to record reasons: Whether there is a need to record reasons while rejecting applications for permanent remission.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:
- Whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission.
- The nature of conditions imposed while granting remission.
- Whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted.
- Whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanent remission.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Can remission be granted without an application? | Yes, if a policy for premature release exists. | The state must consider all eligible convicts under the policy to avoid discrimination and ensure fairness. |
| Nature of conditions imposed during remission | Conditions must be reasonable and aimed at rehabilitation. | Conditions should not be oppressive or vague and must ensure the convict’s criminal tendencies remain in check. |
| Automatic revocation of remission | Not permissible without following natural justice principles. | A show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard are necessary before revocation. |
| Requirement to record reasons for rejection | Yes, reasons must be recorded. | Recording reasons ensures transparency and allows the convict to understand and challenge the rejection. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452: Discussed the procedure to be followed for exercising power under Section 432 CrPC.
- Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294: Contemplated an application to be made for grant of permanent remission, with the majority view holding that suo motu power to grant remission cannot be exercised.
- Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 6 SCC 561: Considered a scenario where a policy was framed by the appropriate Government for grant of premature release or grant of remission.
- Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2982: Dealt with the nature of conditions that could be imposed while granting remission and the procedure for revocation of remission.
- Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481: Held that the reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Government can grant remission only upon application. | Rejected in cases where a policy for premature release exists. The Court held that the government must consider all eligible cases under the policy. |
| Conditions for remission should be stringent. | Modified. The Court stated that conditions must be reasonable and aimed at rehabilitation, not oppressive. |
| Remission can be automatically revoked upon breach of conditions. | Rejected. The Court emphasized the need for a show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard before revocation. |
| Reasons for rejecting remission are not necessary. | Rejected. The Court mandated that reasons must be recorded to ensure transparency and allow convicts to challenge the decision. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452: Cited to highlight the general procedure for remission under Section 432 CrPC but distinguished in the context of existing premature release policies.
- Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294: Referenced for the requirement of an application but distinguished in cases where a policy for premature release exists.
- Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 6 SCC 561: Relied upon to emphasize the obligation of the state to consider all eligible convicts under a premature release policy.
- Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2982: Extensively used to define the nature of conditions for remission and the procedure for revocation, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
- Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481: Used to reinforce the requirement of recording reasons for granting or refusing remission.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the rights of convicts with the interests of society, ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles. The Court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation, the need for reasonable conditions, and the necessity of following natural justice principles.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Non-Discrimination | 30% |
| Rehabilitation of Convicts | 25% |
| Transparency and Reasoned Decisions | 20% |
| Adherence to Natural Justice | 15% |
| Public Safety | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Aspects | 40% |
| Legal Considerations | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal considerations, balancing them with the factual aspects of ensuring fair and just outcomes.
Logical Reasoning
No: Government should formulate a policy within two months.
Key Takeaways
- Policy Obligation: If a government has a policy for premature release, it must consider all eligible convicts, regardless of whether they have applied.
- Policy Formulation: States and Union Territories without a remission policy must formulate one within two months.
- Conditional Remission: Conditions for remission must be reasonable, aimed at rehabilitation, and capable of being performed.
- Reasoned Orders: Orders granting or rejecting remission must contain brief reasons and be communicated to the convict.
- Natural Justice: Remission cannot be withdrawn without giving the convict an opportunity to be heard.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- States and Union Territories without a policy on remission must formulate one within two months.
- District Legal Services Authorities shall implement the NALSA SOP and monitor the eligibility of convicts for premature release.
- The order granting or refusing remission must be communicated to the convict with the reasons and the right to challenge the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a policy for premature release exists, the government is obligated to consider all eligible convicts for remission, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination. This clarifies and reinforces the state’s duty to act proactively in cases affecting the liberty of individuals, especially those with limited resources and access to legal remedies.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 provides critical clarifications on the policies and procedures for granting bail and remission. The Court emphasized the need for fairness, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles, ensuring that the rights of convicts are balanced with the interests of society. The judgment reinforces the state’s obligation to consider all eligible convicts under existing premature release policies and mandates the formulation of such policies where they are lacking.