Case Summary
Case Name: In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021
Date of Judgment: 18th February 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Liz Mathew (Senior Advocate), assisted by Shri Navneet R.
Statutes Involved:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432, 433, 433-A
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 473, 474, 475
Constitution of India – Articles 72, 161
Cited Judgments:
Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294
Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 6 SCC 561
Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2982
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481
Introduction
The Supreme Court, through this suo motu writ petition, examined the policy framework governing the grant of remission and premature release of convicts. The judgment elaborates on the power of the appropriate government to remit sentences under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC, its limitations under Section 433-A, and the equivalent provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
This decision clarifies the nature of remission, the procedural safeguards required, and the obligations of the government to ensure fair and non-arbitrary exercise of this power.
Key Issues Considered
1. Can the Government Grant Remission Without an Application?
The judgment distinguishes between individual applications and cases where a policy exists. It relies on Sangeet v. State of Haryana and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab to assert that remission cannot be granted suo motu in the absence of a specific application.
However, it acknowledges the precedent set in Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court mandated that in states with established remission policies, the government must proactively assess eligible prisoners without requiring a formal application.
“The promise of equality in our Constitution would not be fulfilled if liberty were to be conditional on an individual's resources.” (Rashidul Jafar Case)
2. Requirement of a Policy for Remission
The judgment underscores the necessity for every state and union territory to adopt a remission policy within two months to prevent arbitrary decision-making.
“To ensure that the power is not exercised in an arbitrary manner, all the states that do not have an exhaustive policy on this aspect must come up with an exhaustive policy within two months from today.”
3. Power to Impose Conditions on Remission
The Court confirmed that remission orders could be conditional but emphasized that conditions must be reasonable, enforceable, and not oppressive. It cites Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, stating:
“The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and the convict rehabilitates himself in society.”
It further provides guiding principles for framing conditions, emphasizing public safety, the nature of the offense, and the convict’s rehabilitation.
4. Revocation of Remission
The Court ruled that remission could not be revoked automatically upon breach of conditions. Instead, a due process involving a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard must be followed. It reiterated the principles from Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar:
“Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order.”
“The allegations of breach cannot be taken at their face value; a case for cancellation of remission must be made out based on the facts.”
5. Requirement to Record Reasons
The judgment emphasized that any decision regarding remission, whether granting or refusing it, must be reasoned and communicated to the convict. This is in line with Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, which held that:
“Reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order.”
Additionally, it directed that convicts be informed of their right to challenge refusals and that legal aid authorities be notified immediately.
Conclusions and Directives
The Court issued several binding directions:
Mandatory Consideration of Eligible Cases – Governments with remission policies must proactively review all eligible convicts, even without an application.
State Policies within Two Months – All states and union territories without remission policies must formulate one within two months.
Fair and Reasonable Conditions – Conditions attached to remission must be fair, non-oppressive, and practically enforceable.
Due Process for Revocation – Remission cannot be revoked without a formal hearing and recorded reasons.
Transparent and Reasoned Orders – All remission decisions must include reasons and be promptly communicated to convicts and legal aid authorities.
Implementation of NALSA SOP – Legal aid bodies must ensure the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for remission is followed in all prisons.
Judicial Accountability – When consulted under Section 432(2) CrPC, presiding judges must provide their recommendations within a reasonable timeframe to avoid undue delays in remission decisions.
Impact and Implications
This judgment has far-reaching consequences for criminal justice administration in India. By clarifying the scope and limitations of remission powers, the Court has reinforced the importance of due process and transparency. The directive for state governments to proactively consider remission cases will significantly impact overcrowding in prisons and ensure that eligible convicts are not arbitrarily deprived of their right to remission.
Further, the insistence on recording reasons and granting a right to challenge refusals aligns remission practices with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, preventing arbitrary and discriminatory decision-making.
This decision is a landmark step in ensuring that remission powers are exercised judiciously, fairly, and in a manner that upholds the rule of law and constitutional principles.
Final Remarks
The Supreme Court’s approach in this case harmonizes statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and constitutional safeguards. By mandating uniform policies and procedural safeguards, the judgment significantly enhances accountability and fairness in remission decisions. Legal professionals and policymakers must closely monitor its implementation to ensure that these principles are upheld in practice.
Kommentare