Supreme Court Upholds 26-Year Sentence for Drug Offense: Union of India vs. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 27

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a prisoner transferred from a foreign country have their sentence reduced to match Indian law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a prisoner convicted in Mauritius for drug trafficking and later transferred to India. The core issue revolved around whether the Indian government was obligated to reduce the prisoner’s sentence to align with the maximum penalty for a similar offense under Indian law. This judgment clarifies the extent to which India is bound by sentences imposed by foreign courts when prisoners are transferred under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, the Respondent, was convicted by the Supreme Court of Mauritius for possessing 152.8 grams of heroin. He was sentenced to 26 years of 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. Upon his transfer, he requested that his sentence be reduced to 10 years, the maximum sentence for a similar offense under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 (NDPS Act) in India. He also requested that his time spent in custody in Mauritius be considered towards his sentence in India. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, agreed to deduct his time in custody but rejected the request to reduce his sentence to 10 years.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Bombay allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent, holding that if the offense had been committed in India, the Respondent would have received a maximum sentence of 10 years under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The High Court found the government’s reasons for not reducing the sentence to be unjustifiable and in violation of Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. Consequently, the High Court declared that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of adaptation of sentence under Section 13 of the 2003 Act. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment after issuing notice on 26 August 2019.

Legal Framework

The core of this case involves the interpretation of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and the agreement between India and Mauritius on the transfer of prisoners.

✓ Section 12 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, allows the Central Government to accept the transfer of a prisoner who is a citizen of India from a contracting state, subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon between India and that state.

✓ Section 13 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, outlines the procedure for determining the prison and issuing a warrant for receiving a transferred prisoner in India. 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 the Government of India and the Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners states:

“1. The receiving State shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring State.

2. If, however, the sentence is by its nature or duration or both incompatible with the law of the receiving State, or its law so requires, that State may, by court or administrative order, adapt the sentence to a punishment or measure prescribed by its own law. As to its nature and duration the punishment or measure shall, as far as possible, correspond with that imposed by the judgment of the transferring State. It shall however not aggravate, by its nature or duration, the sentence imposed by the transferring State.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the receiving state (India) is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state (Mauritius).
• The Central Government has the discretion to adapt the sentence under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, only when the sentence is incompatible with Indian law as a whole, not just a specific section of the NDPS Act.
• The ASG contended that the term ‘incompatible’ should be interpreted in the context of the fundamental laws of India, not merely a comparison with the NDPS Act.
• The decision to not reduce the sentence was a matter of foreign policy and should not be lightly interfered with by judicial review.
• The ASG stated that the strong bilateral ties between India and Mauritius could be adversely affected by reducing the sentence, particularly in a drug trafficking case.
• The Respondent had given an undertaking to abide by the sentence adaptability order at the time of his repatriation.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed):

• The Senior Counsel for the Respondent argued that the government had not given sufficient reasons for rejecting the request for reduction of sentence.
• The Respondent argued that he was being discriminated against because the government had reduced sentences for other repatriated prisoners.
• It was argued that there was clear incompatibility between the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius and the sentence that would be imposed for a similar offense under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
• The quantity of heroin found in the Respondent’s possession was an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, for which the maximum sentence is 10 years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. What is the correct interpretation of Sections 12 and 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and Article 8 of the agreement on the transfer of sentenced prisoners between India and Mauritius?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• International Agreements: The Court emphasized that India is bound by the terms of the agreement with Mauritius, which stipulates that the receiving state must respect the sentence imposed by the transferring state.
• Interpretation of ‘Incompatibility’: The Court clarified that ‘incompatibility’ under Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act refers to a sentence that is contrary to the fundamental laws of India, not merely a comparison with the NDPS Act.
• Discretion of the Central Government: The Court recognized that the Central Government has the discretion to adapt a sentence but is not obligated to do so in every case.
• Foreign Policy Considerations: The Court implicitly acknowledged the importance of maintaining strong bilateral ties with Mauritius, which could be affected by interfering with the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
• Undertaking by the Respondent: The Court noted that the Respondent had given an undertaking to abide by the sentence adaptability order at the time of his repatriation.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily legal, focusing on the interpretation of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and the agreement between India and Mauritius. While factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal framework and international agreements weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: What is the correct interpretation of Sections 12 and 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and Article 8 of the agreement on the transfer of sentenced prisoners between India and Mauritius?

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld that the receiving state (India) is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state (Mauritius).
• The Court clarified that the term ‘incompatible’ under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, refers to a sentence that is contrary to the fundamental laws of India, not merely a comparison with the NDPS Act.
• The Central Government has the discretion to adapt a sentence but is not obligated to do so in every case.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of international agreements and comity of nations in matters of prisoner transfers.
• The decision reinforces the principle that the receiving state must respect the sentence imposed by the transferring state.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the receiving state (India) is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state (Mauritius). The Court clarified that the term ‘incompatible’ under Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, refers to a sentence that is contrary to the fundamental laws of India, not merely a comparison with the NDPS Act. This judgment clarifies the scope of the Central Government’s power to adapt sentences of prisoners transferred from foreign countries. It reinforces the principle of comity of nations and the importance of international agreements in prisoner transfer cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Bombay. The Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius was binding on India. The Court clarified that the Central Government has the discretion to adapt a sentence but is not obligated to do so in every case. This judgment reinforces the importance of international agreements and the principle that the receiving state must respect the sentence imposed by the transferring state.