The Supreme Court emphasized that strict conditions on life convicts for premature release under the remission policy could undermine its effectiveness. Key issues discussed included the nature and evaluation of remission applications and the need for standardized processes across states. The bench urged principles of justice and fairness, while addressing the lack of uniformity in policies.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 6th) stressed that onerous conditions should not be imposed on life convicts when granting premature release under the remission policy. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that such conditions could render the benefit of remission ineffective. The bench reserved its verdict on various issues related to granting remission to life convicts across the country.
“The conditions for grant of remission should not be so onerous which are difficult to get implemented… such conditions would make the benefit of remission redundant,”
the bench remarked. It further noted that conditions should be clear, enforceable, and allow convicts the right to a hearing if remission is revoked due to violations.
Issues Before the Bench
The court considered three key questions:
- The nature of conditions to be imposed at the time of granting remission and situations warranting its cancellation.
- Whether state governments must evaluate applications of eligible convicts seeking remission under their policies, even in the absence of formal applications.
- Whether reasons must be recorded when rejecting such applications.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae Liz Mathew argued for standardizing remission processes across states to ensure justice, fairness, and rehabilitation, aligning with India’s reformatory criminal justice philosophy.
Mathew emphasized that while remission is not a vested right, being considered for it is. She highlighted that remission is a discretionary power under Section 432 of the CrPC and Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution.
“Being awarded life imprisonment means a sentence for the prisoner’s entire life unless the appropriate government decides to remit part or all of the sentence,”
she stated.
Mathew called for conditions aimed at reformation, rather than being punitive or vague, and urged states to consider factors such as the convict’s conduct, health, family circumstances, and the nature of the crime. She raised concerns about the lack of uniformity in remission policies across states, as noted by the National Human Rights Commission.
The amicus curiae proposed:
- Timely identification of eligible convicts.
- Support from district legal services authorities in filing applications.
- Strict timelines for processing remission pleas.
- Transparent and specific conditions to uphold constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty).
Mathew also called for adjudicating violations of remission conditions under Section 227 of the IPC to ensure compliance with natural justice.
Mathew urged state governments to proactively identify eligible convicts, even if no applications were filed, to uphold fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary detention. This would transform the remission process into a rights-based system reflecting India’s commitment to justice and human dignity.
The bench, hearing a 2021 suo motu case titled “Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”, directed all states and union territories to inform convicts of any rejection of remission applications within one week. This initiative aims to standardize and improve transparency in remission policies nationwide.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
