Supreme Court Mandates Automatic Consideration of Remission Cases

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has mandated that states must consider all eligible cases for remission even if convicts do not apply specifically. This decision aims to ensure that no eligible convict is overlooked and strengthens constitutional rights.

Key Points of the Ruling

The bench, comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that states with remission policies must evaluate all cases without requiring applications. This requirement is essential to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness.

“Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, 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 according to the policy.”

The court ruled that states failing to consider all eligible cases based on policy guidelines would be violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection under the law.

Power of the State Government

The Supreme Court also outlined the state’s responsibilities in issuing remission orders. The power under Section 432(1) must be exercised fairly and reasonably. The government has the authority to impose conditions on granting remission, aiming for the rehabilitation of the convict without making conditions overly stringent.

“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.”

Directions to States and UTs

States and Union Territories lacking specific remission policies must develop one within two months. This deadline ensures that all jurisdictions have clear guidelines for remission cases.

Guidance on Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar Case

The court provided additional clarification in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat case regarding the cancellation of permanent remission. It emphasized that cancelling a remission order must be done with proper reasons and an opportunity for the convict to be heard.

“The cancellation can be only on the grounds of the breach of the terms and conditions on which the remission is granted. In case of cancellation, the convict is required to undergo the remaining sentence.”

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling carries significant implications for the administration of criminal justice in India. It ensures that the process of granting remission is transparent, fair, and constitutional, protecting the rights of convicts and enhancing the integrity of the legal system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directive on automatic consideration of remission cases demonstrates a commitment to fairness and justice. It sets a robust framework ensuring that no eligible convict is denied a chance at early release if they meet the criteria under the law.

As we move forward, it will be crucial to monitor how states implement these new guidelines and to ensure that the rights of all legal stakeholders are protected.

We value your thoughts on this important ruling. Please feel free to share your comments and insights below.

Don’t forget to subscribe for more updates on legal news and judicial rulings.

Share this article on social media to spread the awareness: