Supreme Court Upholds Sentence of Transferred Prisoner: Union of India vs. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 38

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

Can a transferred prisoner’s sentence be reduced by the receiving state based on its own laws? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the interpretation of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and international agreements. This case revolves around a prisoner transferred from Mauritius to India, challenging the receiving state’s obligation to uphold the original sentence. The 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 possession of 152.8 grams of heroin and sentenced to 26 years of imprisonment. He was transferred to India on 04 March 2016 under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The respondent then sought a reduction of his sentence to 10 years, citing Section 21(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 (NDPS Act), which prescribes a maximum of 10 years for similar offenses in India. He also requested that his time spent in custody in Mauritius be considered. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, acknowledged the time spent in remand but rejected the request for sentence reduction on 03 December 2018. This rejection was challenged in the High Court of Bombay.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Bombay allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent. The High Court opined 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 held that the rejection of the Respondent’s request for sentence reduction was not justifiable and violated Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. 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 this judgment upon appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• 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 agreed terms and conditions. “The Central Government may accept the transfer of a prisoner, who is a citizen of India, from a contracting State wherein he is undergoing any sentence of imprisonment subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed to between India and that State.”
• Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003: This section allows the Central Government to adapt the sentence of a prisoner if it is incompatible with Indian law, ensuring it corresponds with the sentence imposed by the transferring state. “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: This article stipulates that the receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state. It also allows for adaptation of the sentence if it is incompatible with the receiving state’s law, but the adapted sentence should correspond with the original sentence as much as possible. “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.”
• Section 21(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994: This section prescribes the punishment for offenses related to intermediate quantities of narcotics, which is a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring state.
• The Central Government has discretion under Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act to adapt the sentence only if it is incompatible with Indian law as a whole, not merely with a specific section of the NDPS Act.
• The term ‘incompatible’ in Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act should not be misconstrued.
• The Central Government’s discretion should be exercised considering the comity of nations and strategic partnerships, and not mechanically.
• Reducing the sentence would be detrimental to 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 to India.
• The decision to not reduce the sentence is a matter of foreign policy and should not be interfered with by judicial review.
• There are strong bilateral ties between India and Mauritius which may be adversely affected by interference with the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed):

• The Government has not provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the representation for reduction of sentence.
• The Respondent is being discriminated against, as the Government of India has reduced sentences for other repatriated individuals.
• There is an obvious incompatibility between the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius and the sentence that can be imposed for a similar offense under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
• The quantity of heroin found in the Respondent’s possession falls under the intermediate quantity category under the NDPS Act, for which the maximum sentence is 10 years.
• As the Respondent has already undergone 10 years, the Government accepted to take into account the sentence undergone by him in Mauritius.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court for consideration is:

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 between India and Mauritius regarding the transfer of sentenced prisoners?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003
  • Section 12: Deals with the transfer of prisoners into India.
  • Section 13: Deals with the determination of prison and issue of warrant for receiving transfer in India.
• Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners
  • Article 8: This article pertains to the continued enforcement of sentence.
• Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994
  • Section 21(b): This section specifies the punishment for offenses related to intermediate quantities of narcotics.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 [CITATION]: The Court interpreted Sections 12 and 13 to mean that the sentence imposed by the transferring state is binding on the receiving state unless there is an incompatibility with the fundamental laws of the receiving state.
• Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners [CITATION]: The Court relied on Article 8 of the agreement, which mandates that the receiving state is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state.
• Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged Section 21(b) to understand the maximum sentence applicable for a similar offense in India, but clarified that this is not the only consideration for adaptation of sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• International Obligations: The Court emphasized that India is bound by the terms of the agreement with Mauritius, which states that the receiving state must respect the sentence imposed by the transferring state.
• Interpretation of the Repatriation Act: The Court clarified that Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act allows for adaptation of sentence only when there is a fundamental incompatibility with Indian law, not merely a difference in sentencing under specific statutes like the NDPS Act.
• Comity of Nations: The Court noted that the decision to not reduce the sentence was influenced by foreign policy considerations and the need to maintain strong bilateral ties with 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 back to India.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), such as the interpretation of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and the international agreement between India and Mauritius. Factual aspects (30%) like the quantity of heroin and the undertaking given by the respondent were also considered but were secondary to the legal framework.

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the sentence should be automatically reduced to 10 years based on the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the adaptation of sentence is not automatic and should be done only when the sentence is incompatible with Indian law as a whole. The Court further clarified that even if adaptation is considered, the adapted sentence should correspond to the original sentence as far as possible.

“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 receiving state is bound by the sentence imposed by the transferring state in cases of prisoner transfer, as per international agreements.
• Adaptation of sentence is not automatic and is only permissible when the sentence is incompatible with the fundamental laws of the receiving state, not merely a specific provision of a statute.
• The Central Government’s decision regarding adaptation of sentence is influenced by foreign policy and international obligations.
• Undertaking given by the prisoner at the time of repatriation is also a factor.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, and its interplay with international agreements.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the receiving state is bound by the sentence imposed by the transferring state unless there is a fundamental incompatibility with the receiving state’s laws. The judgment clarifies that the adaptation of sentence is not automatic and is only permissible when the sentence is incompatible with the fundamental laws of the receiving state, not merely a specific provision of a statute. This judgment reinforces the importance of international agreements in matters of prisoner transfer and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is binding on India, and the Central Government’s decision to not reduce the sentence was valid. The Court clarified that the adaptation of sentence is not automatic and should be done only when the sentence is incompatible with Indian law as a whole, considering international obligations and foreign policy considerations.