The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that if a remission application is denied, the convict must be informed of the reasons behind the rejection.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(22nd Oct), the Supreme Court issued several directives aimed at ensuring that convicts are informed about their options regarding permanent remission (early release from prison) and the process for contesting rejections of such applications.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that if a remission application is denied, the convict must be informed of the reasons behind the rejection.
“All States must ensure that rejection orders are communicated to the relevant convicts… We make it clear that the State must communicate these orders within one week of the decision. If the rejection orders lack reasons, the review board’s recorded reasons must be provided to the convicts,”
stated the Court.Section 432(1) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
Additionally, the Court mandated that these rejection orders should be sent to the appropriate legal services authority, which will ensure that convicts are aware of their right to challenge the rejection.
The Court also clarified that previously granted remissions cannot be automatically revoked and cautioned States and Union Territories (UTs) against imposing generic conditions when granting remission.
“States must not impose stereotypical conditions on convicts; each condition should align with the specific facts of the case,”
the Court remarked.
Furthermore, the Court ordered that copies of the remission policies applicable to each State or UT must be made readily accessible, including in English, so that all convicts are informed of their options to apply for remission.
“Copies of the existing remission policy shall be available in every prison, with an English translation posted on the government website. Jail superintendents are directed to provide these copies to eligible convicts. Any modifications to the policy must be updated accordingly,” the Court stated.
The Court disapproved of the practice of delaying the processing of remission applications solely because a convict’s appeal against their conviction is pending.
“We clarify that this is not a valid reason to leave remission applications unresolved. The State must process these applications,”
the Court asserted.
The bench was addressing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) concerning bail in cases where prisoners’ appeals against their convictions have been pending for an extended period. In such cases, the Court had previously indicated a preference for granting bail unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
During these hearings, the issue of remission was also raised. Last month, the Court instructed all State governments and UTs to promptly provide convicts with copies of decisions regarding their remission applications.
In the latest order, the Court reiterated that rejection orders for remission must be communicated within one week. Additionally, it suggested that it may consider the automatic eligibility of convicts for remission without requiring them to file formal applications. The Court has requested Amicus Curiae Liz Mathew to provide recommendations on this matter.
Case Title: In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
