LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Indian government is obligated to reduce the sentence of a prisoner repatriated from a foreign country to match the maximum sentence for a similar offense under Indian law, or if the sentence imposed by the transferring country is binding.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, International Law, Repatriation of Prisoners
Case Name: Union of India & Anr. vs. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed & Ors.
Judgment Date: 11 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 18
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.
Can a prisoner, transferred to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, have their sentence reduced to align with Indian law, even if the sentence was imposed by a foreign court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a prisoner transferred from Mauritius. The core issue revolved around interpreting the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and the agreement between India and Mauritius on the transfer of prisoners, specifically regarding the enforcement of sentences. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The respondent, Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, was convicted by the Supreme Court of Mauritius for possessing 152.8 grams of heroin. He was sentenced to 26 years imprisonment under the Dangerous Drugs Act of Mauritius. Ahmed was later transferred to India on 04 March 2016, under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. After his transfer, he requested that his sentence be reduced to 10 years, which is the maximum sentence for a similar offense under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 (NDPS Act) in India. He also asked that the time he had already served in Mauritius be considered. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, agreed to deduct his time in remand but rejected the request to reduce his sentence to 10 years.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Respondent traveled to Mauritius multiple times under the guise of scrap metal business. |
| N/A | Respondent was arrested in Mauritius for possession of 152.8 grams of heroin. |
| N/A | Supreme Court of Mauritius convicted the Respondent and sentenced him to 26 years imprisonment. |
| 09 October 2015 | Respondent gave an undertaking to abide by the sentence adaptability order issued under the agreement between India and Mauritius. |
| 04 March 2016 | Respondent was repatriated to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. |
| 24 October 2016 | A warrant of transfer was issued specifying the sentence as 26 years. |
| N/A | Respondent requested the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to reduce his sentence to 10 years. |
| 03 December 2018 | Ministry of Home Affairs ordered that the period spent in remand be deducted from the 26-year sentence, but rejected the request to reduce the sentence to 10 years. |
| 02 May 2019 | High Court of Bombay allowed the Respondent’s Writ Petition, ordering that he was entitled to the benefit of adaptation of sentence under Section 13 of the 2003 Act. |
| 26 August 2019 | Supreme Court of India issued notice in the SLP and stayed the judgment of the High Court. |
| 11 January 2022 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by Union of India, setting aside the order of the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay challenging the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting his request for reduction of sentence. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, stating that if the offense had been committed in India, the Respondent would have been sentenced to a maximum of 10 years under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The High Court found the rejection of the Respondent’s request to be a violation of Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, specifically Sections 12 and 13, and Article 8 of the agreement between India and Mauritius on the transfer of prisoners.
- Section 12 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003: This section allows the Central Government to accept the transfer of a prisoner who is a citizen of India from a contracting state, subject to terms and conditions agreed upon between India and that state. It also allows the government to issue a warrant to detain the prisoner.
- Section 13 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003: This section deals with the determination of the prison where the transferred prisoner will be lodged and the issuance of a warrant for receiving the transfer. Sub-section (6) of Section 13 states:
“If the sentence of imprisonment passed against the prisoner in the contracting State is incompatible with the Indian law as to its nature, duration or both, the Central Government may, by order, adapt the sentence of such punishment as to the nature, duration or both, as the case may be, as is compatible to the sentence of imprisonment provided for a similar offence had that offence been committed in India: Provided that the sentence so adapted shall, as far as possible, correspond with the sentence imposed by the judgment of the contracting State to the prisoner and such adapted sentence shall not aggravate the punishment, by its nature, duration or both relating to the sentence imposed in the contracting State.” - Article 8 of the Agreement between India and Mauritius: This article states that the receiving state (India) shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring state (Mauritius). However, if the sentence is incompatible with the law of the receiving state, it may adapt the sentence, but it should correspond as far as possible with the sentence imposed by the transferring state and not aggravate it.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant (Union of India):
- The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring state. The enforcement of the sentence is governed by the law of the receiving state, but the duration is determined by the transferring state.
- The Central Government has the discretion to adapt the sentence under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, only if the sentence is incompatible with Indian law as a whole, not just a specific provision.
- The ASG contended that the term ‘incompatible’ should not be narrowly construed. The discretion to adapt the sentence should be exercised keeping in mind the comity of nations and strategic partnerships.
- The ASG further argued that mechanical reduction of the sentence would be detrimental to the interests of other prisoners awaiting repatriation from Mauritius.
- The Respondent had given an undertaking to abide by the sentence adaptability order at the time of his repatriation, and therefore, he cannot seek a reduction of sentence now.
- The decision not to reduce the sentence is a matter of foreign policy and should not be lightly interfered with by judicial review.
- The ASG emphasized the strong bilateral ties between India and Mauritius, which could be adversely affected by interfering with a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in a drug trafficking case.
Arguments by the Respondent (Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed):
- The Senior Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Government did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the representation for reduction of sentence.
- The Respondent is being discriminated against, as the Government has reduced sentences for other repatriated prisoners.
- There is an obvious incompatibility between the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius and the sentence that could be imposed for a similar offense under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act in India, which is a maximum of 10 years for the quantity of heroin possessed by the Respondent.
- The Respondent has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment, including the time spent in Mauritius.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Binding Nature of Sentence |
✓ Receiving state bound by duration of sentence by transferring state. ✓ Enforcement of sentence by receiving state’s law. |
✓ Sentence incompatible with Indian law. ✓ Maximum sentence under NDPS Act is 10 years. |
| Discretion under Section 13(6) |
✓ Discretion to adapt only if incompatible with Indian law as a whole. ✓ Discretion to be exercised considering comity of nations and strategic partnerships. ✓ Mechanical reduction detrimental to other prisoners awaiting repatriation. |
✓ No reasons given for rejecting sentence reduction. ✓ Discrimination as other repatriated prisoners had sentence reduced. |
| Undertaking by Respondent | ✓ Respondent cannot seek reduction after undertaking to abide by sentence adaptability order. | ✓ Respondent already served 10 years including time in Mauritius. |
| Foreign Policy |
✓ Decision not to reduce sentence prompted by foreign policy and should not be judicially reviewed. ✓ Strong bilateral ties with Mauritius could be affected by interference. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- What is the correct interpretation of Sections 12 and 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and Article 8 of the agreement between India and Mauritius regarding the transfer of sentenced prisoners?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Sections 12 and 13(6) of the 2003 Act and Article 8 of the Agreement | The sentence imposed by the transferring state is binding on the receiving state unless it is incompatible with fundamental laws of India. | The Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is binding on India. The adaptation of sentence is only permissible when the Central Government is convinced that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is incompatible with fundamental laws of India, not just a specific provision of law. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following legal provisions and agreements:
| Authority | Type | How it was used | Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 12, Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 | Statute | Explained the Central Government’s power to accept the transfer of prisoners subject to terms and conditions agreed upon with the contracting state. | Supreme Court of India |
| Section 13(6), Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 | Statute | Explained the Central Government’s power to adapt a sentence if it is incompatible with Indian law, but also emphasized that the adapted sentence should correspond as far as possible with the sentence imposed by the transferring state. | Supreme Court of India |
| Article 8, Agreement between India and Mauritius on Transfer of Prisoners | Agreement | Stated that the receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring state, but also allowed for adaptation of the sentence if it is incompatible with the law of the receiving state. | Supreme Court of India |
| Section 21(b), Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 | Statute | Reference was made by the Respondent to contend that the maximum sentence for the quantity of heroin possessed by him was 10 years. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The Appellant argued that the receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring state. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is binding on the receiving state. |
| The Appellant argued that the Central Government has discretion to adapt the sentence only if it is incompatible with Indian law as a whole, not a specific provision. | The Court upheld this argument, noting that incompatibility with Indian law refers to the fundamental laws of India, not just a specific section of a statute. |
| The Appellant contended that the Respondent cannot seek reduction of sentence after submitting an undertaking to abide by the sentence adaptability order. | The Court did not explicitly address this point but upheld the Central Government’s decision, which was based on the binding nature of the sentence and the limited scope of adaptation. |
| The Appellant submitted that the decision not to reduce the sentence is a matter of foreign policy and should not be judicially reviewed. | The Court did not directly address the foreign policy aspect, but it did uphold the Central Government’s decision, which was influenced by foreign policy considerations. |
| The Respondent argued that the Government did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the representation for reduction of sentence. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the reasons recorded by the Central Government were in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act and the agreement between India and Mauritius. |
| The Respondent argued that he is being discriminated against, as the Government has reduced sentences for other repatriated prisoners. | The Court did not find this argument valid in the context of the present case. |
| The Respondent argued that there is an obvious incompatibility between the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius and the sentence that could be imposed for a similar offense under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the reference to Indian law in Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act is not restricted to a particular section of the NDPS Act. The incompatibility should be with reference to the enforcement of the sentence being contrary to fundamental laws of India. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court interpreted Section 12 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 as enabling the Central Government to accept the transfer of prisoners, subject to the terms agreed upon with the contracting state.
- The Court held that Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 empowers the Central Government to adapt a sentence only if it is incompatible with the fundamental laws of India, not just a specific provision of the NDPS Act. The adapted sentence should also correspond as far as possible with the sentence imposed by the transferring state.
- The Court relied on Article 8 of the Agreement between India and Mauritius, stating that it binds India to the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by Mauritius.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The binding nature of the sentence imposed by the transferring state (Mauritius) as per the agreement between India and Mauritius.
- The interpretation of ‘incompatibility’ under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, which was held to mean incompatibility with the fundamental laws of India, not just a specific provision of a statute.
- The need to maintain comity of nations and strategic partnerships, which are factors that the Central Government takes into account while deciding on the adaptation of sentences.
- The principle that the adapted sentence should correspond as far as possible with the sentence imposed by the transferring state.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Binding nature of the sentence by transferring state | 40% |
| Interpretation of “incompatibility” with Indian law | 30% |
| Comity of nations and strategic partnerships | 20% |
| Adapted sentence to correspond with the transferring state | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the relevant statutes and agreements. The factual aspects of the case, such as the quantity of heroin possessed by the Respondent and the maximum sentence for a similar offense in India, were considered but were not the primary factors in the Court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is binding on India. The Court emphasized that the adaptation of sentence under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, is only permissible when the Central Government is convinced that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is incompatible with the fundamental laws of India, not just a specific provision of law. The Court stated that the reference to Indian law in Section 13(6) is not restricted to a particular section in the NDPS Act.
The Court noted that the High Court had erred in focusing solely on the maximum sentence that could be imposed under the NDPS Act in India, without considering the statement of objects and reasons for the 2003 Act, the scope of Sections 12 and 13 of the 2003 Act, and the agreement between India and Mauritius.
The Court also observed that the Central Government’s decision to reject the request for scaling down the sentence was in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act and the agreement between India and Mauritius.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court upheld the 26-year sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The adaptation of sentence from 26 years to 10 years as per Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act was rejected by the Central Government on the ground that it would amount to reduction of sentence by 16 years which would not be in consonance with Section 13 (6) of the 2003 Act and Article 8 of the Agreement.”
“Reference to Indian law in Section 13 (6) is not restricted to a particular Section in NDPS Act. Incompatibility with Indian law is with reference to the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius being contrary to fundamental laws of India.”
“Even in cases where adaptation is being considered by the Central Government, it does not necessarily have to adapt the sentence to be exactly in the nature and duration of imprisonment provided for in the similar offence in India.”
Key Takeaways
- The sentence imposed by a foreign court is binding on India when a prisoner is transferred under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, unless it is incompatible with the fundamental laws of India.
- The term ‘incompatible’ in Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, refers to incompatibility with the fundamental laws of India, not just a specific provision of a statute.
- The Central Government has the discretion to adapt a sentence, but this discretion should be exercised keeping in mind the comity of nations and strategic partnerships.
- The adapted sentence should correspond as far as possible with the sentence imposed by the transferring state.
- Prisoners transferred under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, cannot automatically expect their sentences to be reduced to the maximum sentence for a similar offense under Indian law.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is binding on the receiving state unless it is incompatible with fundamental laws of India. This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and emphasizes that the term ‘incompatible’ refers to the fundamental laws of India and not just a specific provision of law. The judgment also upholds the importance of international agreements and comity of nations in matters of prisoner repatriation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but a clarification of the existing provisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed clarifies the scope and limitations of sentence adaptation for prisoners transferred to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The Court emphasized that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is binding on the receiving state, and adaptation is only permissible in exceptional circumstances where the sentence is incompatible with the fundamental laws of India. The judgment underscores the importance of international agreements and comity of nations in matters of prisoner repatriation.