Governments obliged to consider remission of eligible convicts without waiting for application: SC

Supreme Court of India
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court in a judgment on Tuesday (February 18, 2025) declared that appropriate governments must consider the premature release of convicts when they become eligible, without waiting for the convicts or their relatives to apply for remission of sentence.

“Where there is a policy of the appropriate government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 (suspension or remission of prison sentence) of the Criminal Procedure Code or [the corresponding provision of] Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, it is the obligation of the appropriate government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy,” a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed.

The verdict came in a suo motu case titled ‘In re: policy strategy for grant of bail’. Senior advocate Liz Mathew assisted the court as amicus curiae.

Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, observed that it was not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make an application for grant of permanent remission. The direction would apply when the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate government contained such policy guidelines.

States which do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Sections 432 or 473 have to formulate a policy within two months from today, the court ordered.

The State government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission.

“The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates himself in the society. The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission. The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed,” the court observed.

Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons and must be immediately communicated to the convict through the prison office and forwarded to the secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities concerned.

“It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission. An order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons,” the apex court held.

The judgment directed district legal services authorities to maintain relevant data of convicts and do the needful when prisoners become eligible for remission. The court directed state legal services authorities to create a portal to upload the data on prisoners’ remission on a real-time basis.