The Gauhati High Court ruled that the heinous nature of an offence alone cannot justify rejecting remission for a life convict. It said authorities must conduct a comprehensive, case-specific assessment of every prisoner before deciding on premature release.
The Gauhati High Court held that the heinous nature of the offence alone cannot be the sole basis for rejecting remission for a life convict.
The court emphasized that a comprehensive, case-specific evaluation of each prisoner must be carried out before any decision is made regarding premature release.
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Manish Choudhury allowed four writ petitions filed by life convicts whose requests for remission/premature release had either been postponed by the Assam State Level Review Board or not decided in a well-reasoned manner.
The court directed the authorities to place all four matters before the Review Board again and to re-examine them afresh in accordance with law.
The petitions were filed by Ganesh Bhumij alias Faloo Karmakar, Holiram Bordoloi, Samsul Miya, and Md. Moynuddin each of whom has been incarcerated for over two decades.
They challenged Review Board decisions that either deferred consideration of their remission proposals for two years or refused to give a reasoned ruling even though reports regarding their conduct and chances of rehabilitation were favourable.
The court noted that inputs from jail officials, the district administration, police authorities, and even the trial courts indicated good behaviour, discipline, and the possibility that the petitioners could lead lawful lives if released. Despite this, the Review Board deferred decisions primarily by citing the seriousness of the crimes.
While examining the applicable remission framework, Justice Choudhury relied on Supreme Court precedents including Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, Sangeet v. State of Haryana, and the more recent ruling in Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand.
The High Court observed that remission decisions must consider multiple factors such as the likelihood of reoffending, the prisoner’s conduct while in prison, whether continued incarceration serves any useful purpose, the prisoner’s age and health, and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
Quoting and applying the Supreme Court’s view in Rohit Chaturvedi, the High Court held,
“The nature of the offence cannot be the sole ground for denying remission.”
The court further stated that remission rulings must result from a balanced evaluation of societal concerns alongside the prisoner’s right to have their case considered using fair and reasonable standards.
The court was particularly critical of the Review Board’s approach in the cases of Samsul Miya and Ganesh Bhumij, where deferment was made solely on the basis that the offences were heinous. The court held that such reasoning did not reflect the factors required under Supreme Court directions or under Assam’s remission policy dated October 6, 2015.
In Md. Moynuddin’s matter, the Review Board had deferred consideration, claiming that the trial court’s opinion was unclear. The High Court ruled that where a judicial assessment is vague or inconclusive, authorities should obtain a fresh judicial opinion rather than indefinitely postponing the remission process.
Also Read: Supreme Court: “Cannot Allow the HC to Exercise Power Under Article 142”
The court also emphasized that Holiram Bordoloi was over 75 years old. Under the state policy, age and physical condition are relevant considerations for remission.
However, the court observed that no medical opinion had been obtained to determine whether his release would pose any risk to society an omission the court considered significant.
Concluding that the remission proposals were not assessed on the basis of all relevant considerations, the High Court directed the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, to place the four cases before the Review Board by July 2026. It also ordered that fresh judicial opinion be obtained wherever necessary, and that any final decision be communicated promptly to the prisoners, including information about their right to challenge an adverse order.
Advocate A. Atreya appeared for the petitioners, while Junior Government Advocate S.S. Roy represented the State respondents.
Case Title: Ganesh Bhumij v. The State of Assam and others with connected matters