A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih ruled that the condition was excessively subjective and manifestly arbitrary.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday (21st Oct) set aside a condition imposed by the Gujarat Government while granting remission (early release from prison) to a murder convict. The condition required the convict to “behave decently” for two years following his release.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih ruled that the condition was excessively subjective and manifestly arbitrary.
The Court noted that the concept of “decency” is fluid, varying over time, and lacks a clear definition in penal or procedural laws. As a result, such an undefined requirement leaves room for arbitrary cancellations of remission by the executive.
“If a condition is unclear or ambiguous, it can be interpreted in multiple ways, making it difficult to enforce,”
the Court observed in its October 21 judgment.
The ruling further clarified that remission conditions which are arbitrary or infringe upon fundamental rights will be invalid.
“Arbitrary conditions are vitiated by Article 14. They may also breach the convict’s rights under Article 21,” the Court held, striking down the impugned condition.
The order was issued while disposing of an appeal filed by the convict challenging his conviction and life sentence.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Gujarat government granted remission to the convict, subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions required the convict to maintain good behavior for two years, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court.
The second condition imposed by the State stipulated that the convict must refrain from committing any cognizable offense or engaging in acts that harm individuals or property. The Supreme Court upheld this condition but clarified that mere allegations of its violation would not be sufficient to revoke remission.
The Court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice, stating that the convict must be given an opportunity to respond before such a significant action is taken.
It noted, “If the remission order is to be revoked, it will inevitably affect the convict’s liberty. Therefore, such drastic power cannot be exercised without adhering to natural justice. A show cause notice specifying the grounds must be issued before revoking remission.”
The Court further held that a minor infraction cannot justify the cancellation of remission.
It added,
“The mere registration of a cognizable offense does not automatically warrant cancellation”.
Allegations of breach must not be accepted at face value. Not every breach justifies revocation of remission, and minor or trivial infractions cannot be grounds for cancellation. There must be substantive material supporting the allegations.”
Based on these clarifications, the Court partially allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State of Gujarat & Ors
