A prisoner transferred to India from the United Kingdom can Seek Remission Under Indian Policy, the Supreme Court has held, ruling that the power to remit a sentence falls within the “other laws” saved by the Indo-UK prisoner transfer agreement.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner convicted in the United Kingdom and transferred to India to serve out his sentence is entitled to have his case for premature release considered under the remission policy applicable in India, setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order and the Union Government’s rejection of his plea [Gurmej Singh v. Union of India & Ors.].
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the criminal appeal on October 8, 2026, and directed the authority concerned to reconsider the appellant’s case afresh within eight weeks.
The case
In 2012, Gurmej Singh was convicted of murder by the Crown Court at Birmingham and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 35 years. He then applied for transfer to India under the Indo-UK Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons, and was transferred in May 2015 to serve the rest of his sentence in Punjab.
On a doubt expressed by the UK authorities, the Ministry of Home Affairs sent a communication dated June 20, 2018. After completing 14 years in custody, Singh applied for premature release. The Union Government rejected the application, citing the bar under the bilateral agreement, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the rejection on October 31, 2023, holding that he had to serve the remaining period of the sentence imposed by the UK court.
The arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. to argue that a person convicted and sentenced by a foreign court is not barred from the benefit of remission under Indian law. The Additional Solicitor General relied on Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed & Ors. to support the rejection.
What the Court said
The bench read Article 10(2) of the Indo-UK Agreement, which allows either contracting State to grant pardon, amnesty or commutation in accordance with its Constitution or other laws. It held that remission fits within those words:
“A reading of Article 10(2) of the Indo-UK Agreement would clearly indicate that either of the contracting States may grant pardon, amnesty and commutation, in accordance with the Constitution or other laws. The words “other laws” would certainly include the laws governing remission of sentence… It is not as if the conviction per se is modified, but it is only the sentence that stands reduced, by way of a policy decision in the form of remission. So long as the said power exists with the State, it assumes the trapping of “other laws”, as mentioned in Article 10 of the Indo-UK Agreement.”
The Court held that Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed did not apply, since Article 10 of the agreement was not involved there and the question in that case was the reduction of a sentence under the sentencing policy for the offence. It also noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ own communication of June 20, 2018 clearly stated that the appellant’s deportation would be subject to the remission policy of the appropriate State or Government.
“Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 31.10.2023.”
The directions
The Court set aside both the High Court’s order and the order of the authority rejecting premature release. It directed the authority to consider the appellant’s case afresh, in accordance with the governing policy, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The appeal was disposed of.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling settles that transfer under the Indo-UK agreement does not freeze a prisoner’s sentence in the form the foreign court fixed it. The conviction and the term imposed in the UK stand, but once the prisoner is serving the sentence in India, the Indian State’s power to remit it, which flows from statute and policy, is part of the “other laws” the treaty itself preserves.
In practice, the Union Government and the States can no longer refuse to examine a transferred prisoner’s remission plea by pointing to the bilateral agreement alone. Such prisoners are entitled to the same policy-based consideration as other life convicts, though the decision on release remains with the competent authority.
Case Title: Gurmej Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16408 of 2024]
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
For the Appellant: Rajiv Kataria, Sunita Punia, Priyanka Tomar, Dolly Shivani, Advocates; Delhi Law Chambers, AOR
For the Respondents: Rajat Bhardwaj, AAG; Baani Khanna, AOR; Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani, Komal Thakkar, Tejal Tapaswani Nagauri, Advocates