Sri Thomas Guriah vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors.
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010018542026
2026:GAU-AS:6526
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/525/2026
SRI THOMAS GURIAH
SON OF LT FRANSISH GURIAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JORPUKHURI
SANTIPUR, P.S. PANERY, DISTRICT UDALGURI BTR, ASSAM, PRESENTLY
LODGED AT DISTRICT JAIL, MANGALDOI 784125.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781006.
2:THE ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME AND
POLITICAL DEPTT
2ND FLOOR
I BLOCK
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781006.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
I BLOCK
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781006.
4:THE STATE LEVEL REVIEW BOARD UNDER THE ASSAM PRISONS ACT
Page No.# 2/15
2013
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
I.E.
THE SECRETARY
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
I BLOCK
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781006.
5:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
E BLOCK
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781006
6:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
ASSAM
ASSAM PRISON HEADQUARTERS
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM - 781022.
7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
UDALGURI OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
UDALGURI
ASSAM - 784509.
8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UDALGURI OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UDALGURI
ASSAM 784509.
9:THE SUPERINTENDENT
Page No.# 3/15
DISTRICT JAIL
MANGALDOI MANGALDAI
ASSAM- 784125
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MR. J KONWAR,MS. C KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
– B E F O R E –
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioners : Mr. A Atreya, Ms. C Kalita, Mr. J Konwar
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M Barman, G.A., Assam.
Date on which judgment
is reserved : N/A.
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 11.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : No.
Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes.
Page No.# 4/15
UDGMENT RDER ORAL
J & O ( )
Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard
Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
seeks consideration of his case for remission and premature release on the basis of
the proposal dated 30.04.2025 prepared by the Superintendent, District Jail,
Mangaldai.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who has completed 19 years, 6
months and 1 day of actual imprisonment as on 28.04.2025 and has earned remission
of 1830 days, has thereby undergone a sentence period of 25 years, 11 months and
29 days up to 28.04.2025. Claiming eligibility for remission and consequential
premature release in terms of the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum
dated 06.10.2015 issued by the Government of Assam in the Home Department under
Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner submitted a prayer through
the Superintendent of the District Jail seeking consideration of his case for premature
release.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even after the lapse of more than 218
days from the date of convening of the Review Board, no decision on the proposal for
release of the petitioner had been communicated to him. Accordingly, the petitioner
was constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
5. Pertinent it is that on 28.04.2026, when this matter was taken up before this
Court, Ms. Barman, learned Government Advocate, produced a copy of the letter
dated 27.04.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home
& Political Department, addressed to the Office of the State Counsel, intimating that
Page No.# 5/15
the State Level Review Board, after re-examining the proposal for remission submitted
on behalf of the petitioner, had rejected the same. The said letter dated 27.04.2026
was accordingly kept on record and marked as Flag ‘X’. The State Level Review Board
held its meeting on 19.03.2026 with the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Home & Political Department, as the Chairperson under Section 20 of the
Assam Prisons Act, 2013. The minutes of the meeting of the Review Board reveal,
inter alia, that the Board decided that remission proposals ought to be confined only
to “exceptional cases”, such as terminally ill patients and cancer patients, and that
prisoners undergoing life imprisonment should ordinarily not be recommended for
release merely upon completion of 14/20 years unless falling within such exceptional
category. Relevant portion of the aforesaid minutes is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference.
“ The meeting was convened to re-examine the cases of remission in respect of
32 (thirty two) life convicts for the year 2025 and review the cases of 58 (Fifty
Eight) inmates undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and to recommend
their premature release as per Govt. OM No. HMB.143/2010/Pt-II/194 Dated
06.10.2015.
Initiating the discussion, the Additional Chief Secretary. Home & Political
Department along with the other members of the Review Board went through
the Supreme Court judgement laid down in the Govt. OM incorporating
necessary details for consideration of the proposals for remission alongwith the
reports of the Jail Superintendents/ comments of District Magistrates and
Superintendents of Police / opinion of the Convicting Confirming Courts.
After a threadbare discussion and upon satisfying itself on the merits/demerits
of each proposal, the following decisions were taken by the Review Board:
1. The Govt. OM No. HMB.143/2010/Pt-II/194 dated 06.10.2015 needs to be
modified and re-written due to the implementation of the BNSS.
2. The Review Board decided to strictly follow the directions given in the Supreme
Court judgement which has also been given in the Govt.OM
No.HMB.143/2010/Pt- II/194 dated 06.10.2015.
3. The Review Board decided to consider the fewer proposals of remission and
Page No.# 6/15
only exceptional cases of life-convicts like terminally ill patients, cancer patients
etc./who has completed the stipulated 14/ 20 years of imprisonment.'
4. The Review Board suggested that the good behaviour alone cannot be the
criteria for premature release of life convicts.
5. The Review Board was of the opinion that prisoners with life sentence should
not be recommended for release just after completion of 14/20 years and
therefore shouldn't be considered for remission unless it falls in the exceptional
category.
6. The Review Board also emphasized the crucial role of Superintendents of Jails
in maintaining the smooth functioning of Jail and that they should have proper
knowledge regarding the rules and conditions pertaining to Jails.
7. The Review Board clarified to the house that existing provisions of the Act(s)
will always take precedence over the provisions of the Assam Jail Manuals and
the Superintendents of Jails should not mechanically recommend cases for
premature release only on the ground of completion of 14/ 20 years of actual
imprisonment. Only those cases having sufficient relevant grounds should be
recommended.
8. The Review Board was of the opinion that the Presiding Judge of the
Sentencing Court should give recommendations along with reasons of
recommendations while recommending cases for premature release.
9. The Review Board decided to recommend remission of the sentence of life
convict AC-8876 Md. Alauddin Ali @ Pui from Central Jail, Guwahati, aged 53
years, who is suffering from cerebrovascular issues making him paralyzed and
is under treatment at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital.
After careful examination and much deliberations the Board decided to return
the 32 (thirty two) proposals received for the year 2025 and 57 (fifty seven)
proposals for the year 2026 to the O/o the I.G. Prisons, Assam with a direction
to resubmit proposals after proper application of mind following the directions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the chair.”
6. A careful reading of the aforesaid minutes reveals that instead of undertaking an
individualized assessment of the petitioner’s case on its own merits, the Review Board
adopted a generalized and wholesale approach in dealing with all the proposals placed
Page No.# 7/15
before it. The minutes do not disclose any discussion whatsoever pertaining to the
petitioner individually. There is no reference to the petitioner’s conduct in jail, the
period of incarceration undergone by him, the remission earned, the report of the Jail
Superintendent, the opinion of the convicting Court, the report of the District
Magistrate or Superintendent of Police, or any other relevant factor germane to the
exercise of remission jurisdiction.
7. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the scheme underlying the Office
Memorandum dated 06.10.2015. The said Office Memorandum contemplates an
individualized consideration of each case of premature release on the basis of relevant
factors including the conduct of the convict, the period of incarceration undergone, the
likelihood of reformation, the reports of the Jail authorities, the views of the District
Administration and the opinion of the convicting Court. The entire framework of the
Office Memorandum is therefore founded upon a case-specific assessment and not
upon generalized assumptions applicable to an entire class of convicts. Relevant
clauses of the Office Memorandum are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“ Government of Assam
Home Department
th
No. HMB.143/2010/PT-II/194 Dated Dispur, the 6 October, 2015
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject. Remission of Sentences of Life Convicts.
The issue of evolving a uniform policy for granting remission of sentences to life
convicts and all other convicts sentenced to imprisonments for more than 14
years in aggregate has been engaging the attention of the Govt. for quite
sometime. The power of remission of sentences has been given under the Article
161 of the Constitution and Sections 432, 433 and 433 (A) of the Cr PC, 1973.
The Rule 571 of the 'Assam Jail Manual' has provided the guidelines in this
regard. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the Criminal
Appeal No.490-91 of 2011 ordered on 20th November, 2012 as follows.
"There is a misconception that a prisoner serving a life sentence has an
Page No.# 8/15
indefeasible right to release on completion of either fourteen years or twenty
years of imprisonment. The prisoner has no such right. A convict undergoing life
imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to
any remission granted by the appropriate Government under section 432 of the
Cr PC. which in turn is subject to the procedural checks in that Section and the
substantive check in Section 433-A of the Cr PC.
The grant of remission is statutory. However to prevent its arbitrary exercise,
the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the
statute. These need to be faithfully enforced.
Remission can be granted under section 432 of the Cr PC in the case of a
definite term of sentences. The power under this section is available only for
granting "additional" remission, i.e. for a period over and above the remission
granted or awarded to a convict under the Jail Manual or other statutory rules.
If the term of sentence is indefinite (as in life imprisonment), the power U/S 432
of Cr PC. can certainly be exercised but not on the basis that life imprisonment
is an arbitrary or notional figure of twenty years of imprisonment.
Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 of the Cr
P.C. the appropriate Government must obtain the opinion (with reason) of the
presiding judge of the convicting or confirming court. Remission can, therefore,
be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner".
The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has also suggested that while granting
remission in respect of life convicts factors governing such consideration should
be the age of the convicts, the physical strength of the individual so as to
assess the danger that an individual is likely to pose in the society in the event
of his release. Further, it was also opined that the prisoner who have become
frail or suffering from terminal diseases, prima-facie would not pose any threat
to the society and therefore such cases should be considered accordingly.
In view of the position stated above the Governor of Assam is pleased to lay
down the following policy for consideration of the prayer of life convicts and
other convicts sentenced to more than 14 years in aggregate in the state of
Assam:
1. All applications made by a convict or on his behalf for remission of sentence
should be submitted to the Superintendent of the Jail. The later in turn will take
steps to forward the same to the Presiding. Judge of the convicting or confirming
court along with the history ticket copy of the judgments, descriptive roll, report
from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the district of the
convict's conduct, report of the Medical Board in case of old-infirm and
terminally ill convicts for his opinion (with reason) about granting of remission.
2. No application shall normally be entertained for remission of life sentence
before completion of 14 years of imprisonment including the period of remission
earned. But where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction
Page No.# 9/15
of a person for an offense for which death is one of the punishments provided
by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted
U/S 433 Cr. PC into one of imprisonment of life, case of such person shall not be
considered unless he/she had served at least 14 years of actual imprisonment.
However, in exceptional eases where prisoner is more than 80 years in age or
infirm/frail or is suffering from terminal diseases, the application may be
processed even if he/she has not completed 14 years of Imprisonment as stated
above.
3 In cases where convicting court is a district court, the concerned
Superintendent of Jail will obtain opinion/with reasons from the convicting
court and submit the proposal of remission to Inspector General of Prisons. In
cases where the convicting or confirming court is the High Court, the Inspector
General of Prisons will obtain opinion/ with reasons from the High Court.
4 The Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming court will record his/her
opinion/with reasons and return the proposal to the Superintendent of the
concerned Jail or Inspector General of Prisons, Assam as the case may be. The
Superintendent of the concerned Jail shall submit to the Inspector General of
Prisons, Assam all proposals for remissions twice in-a-year (during the months
of July and January).
5. Inspector General of Prisons, Assam after his consideration, will submit the
proposal of remission to the Government of Assam along with his
recommendations.
6. The State Government shall examine the proposal received from Inspector
General of Prisons along with the opinion of the Presiding Officer of the
convicting or confirming court, as the case may be. While taking decision, the
State Government shall have regard in respect of the following class of
prisoners:
(a) Convicts who are older than 75 years, convicts who have become frail and
infirm or are suffering from terminal deceases and prima facie would not pose
any threat to the society as per finding of the Medical Board.
(b) Convicts who have spent their imprisonment with excellent track record of
discipline, conduct and hard work.
1. Remission of sentences may be granted by the Government of Assam with or
without conditions after considering the nature of the crime. While doing so the
State Govt. shall also take into consideration whether remission granted could
have adverse effect in the society or shall be detrimental to the interest of the
State. The conditions of refuse shall be clearly stated in the order of remission.
8. Remission proposals shall be decided case-by-case on merit. No decision in
this regard shall be taken on a wholesale manner.
9 Proposal of remission rejected by the Government of Assam, after due
consideration should not be resubmitted before expiry of 2 years from the date
Page No.# 10/15
of rejection except where the person is more than 80 years in age or terminally
ill.
The above procedure will be subject to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 23.07.2015 in Writ Petition No.48/2014.
Sd
M.G.V.K. Bhanu
Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam
Home & Political Department
Memo No. HMB. 143/2010/PТ-П/194-А
Dated Dispur, the 6th October, 2015”
8. It is thus evident from Clause-8 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum that
remission proposals are required to be decided case-by-case on merits and that any
decision in this regard in a wholesale manner is expressly impermissible. Ironically,
while the Review Board purported to rely upon the Office Memorandum dated
06.10.2015 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the procedure actually
adopted by it stands in direct conflict with Clause-8 of the very same Office
Memorandum.
9. However, the minutes of the Review Board meeting dated 19.03.2026 reveal that
instead of examining the merits and demerits of the petitioner’s case independently,
the Board proceeded upon broad policy considerations that only “exceptional cases”
should be considered and that life convicts should ordinarily not be recommended for
premature release upon completion of 14/20 years. The Review Board appears to
have misconstrued the Office Memorandum by treating “exceptional categories” such
as terminal illness and extreme frailty as the governing rule rather than as enabling
exceptions. The policy nowhere stipulates that only such exceptional cases are eligible
for consideration after completion of the stipulated period of incarceration. Such an
approach is directly contrary to the spirit and scheme of the Office Memorandum
dated 06.10.2015, which admittedly continues to hold the field.
10. Significantly, although the Review Board itself observed that the said Office
Memorandum requires modification or re-writing owing to the implementation of the
Page No.# 11/15
BNSS, admittedly no such modification or amendment has yet been brought into force.
Consequently, so long as the Office Memorandum remains operative, the authorities
are bound to act strictly in accordance therewith. Once the State itself formulates a
remission policy prescribing identifiable parameters for consideration, an eligible
convict acquires a legitimate expectation that his case would receive fair, individualized
and reasoned consideration in accordance with such policy.
11. This Court further finds that despite availability of extensive materials
concerning the petitioner, there is absolutely no indication of application of mind to the
petitioner’s individual case. The report of the Superintendent, District Jail, Mangaldai
specifically records that the petitioner had completed the requisite period of
incarceration prescribed under the prevailing policy; that he had earned remission of
1830 days; that his conduct and character during incarceration were found
satisfactory; that he had not indulged in any jail rule violation activity; and that the
requisite reports from the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and the
convicting Court had been received. The records further reveal that except for one
instance of re-capture during annual leave, no other adverse material has been
brought on record against the petitioner.
12. Yet, despite the aforesaid materials being available before the authorities,
the minutes of the Review Board are conspicuously silent as regards any assessment
of the petitioner’s suitability for remission. There is no discussion as to why the
favourable materials placed on record were found insufficient. No reasons have been
assigned as to why the petitioner was found disentitled to consideration. The
requirement of recording reasons is not an empty formality. Reasons constitute the
live link between the materials on record and the conclusion arrived at. In the absence
of any discernible reasons reflecting consideration of the petitioner’s individual case,
the impugned exercise becomes manifestly arbitrary. The decision-making process is
therefore vitiated not only by failure to consider relevant materials but also by
consideration of irrelevant and generalized factors dehors the governing policy.
Page No.# 12/15
13. The right of a convict to have his case for remission considered in a fair, reasoned
and individualized manner flows from the constitutional mandate of fairness and non-
arbitrariness embodied under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex
Court in
Re: Policy Strategy for grant of bail with Special Leave Petition
in emphasized
(Crl.) No.529/2021 Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4/2021
that decisions affecting personal liberty cannot be reduced to mechanical or ritualistic
exercises and must reflect due application of mind to the individual facts of each case.
Though rendered in the context of bail, the underlying principle equally governs the
exercise of remission jurisdiction, which directly concerns the liberty of a convict.
Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference.
“ 17) The power to grant premature release must be exercised in a fair and
reasonable manner. It affects the convict's liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Therefore, the requirement of recording reasons either for
granting or rejecting the prayer for permanent remission will have to be read
into the provisions of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNSS.
Principles of natural justice must be read into the provisions of Section 432 of
the CrPC. In any case, in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India
[(2024) 5 SCC 481], in paragraph 222.8, this Court held that the reasons for
grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order.
Therefore, the requirement to record reasons exists. Brief reasons must be
recorded, which are sufficient to enable the convict to understand why his
prayer for remission has been rejected. This enables him to challenge the order
of rejection.
18) Furthermore, it follows that the order passed by the appropriate Government
of either granting or rejecting the prayer for remission must be communicated to
the convict. If the prayer is refused, while providing a copy of the order to the
convict, he must be informed that he has a right to challenge the order. A copy of
the order rejecting the prayer must be immediately provided to the Secretary of
the District Legal Services Authority so that legal aid can be offered to the
prisoner to challenge the order. ”
14. In the present case, the records do not disclose even the bare minimum
consideration of the petitioner’s individual circumstances. Rather, the petitioner’s case
Page No.# 13/15
appears to have been rejected as part of a generalized exercise founded upon broad
observations applicable to all convicts alike. Remission jurisprudence cannot be
permitted to degenerate into an exercise of broad categorization divorced from
individual facts. The law requires consideration of the individual convict, not merely
the category into which he may be placed. Such an approach not only defeats the
very object of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015 but also renders the
decision-making process arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
15 . Ms. Barman, learned Government Advocate, fairly submits that in terms of the
existing Office Memorandum, the case of the petitioner ought to have been
independently considered on merits. She, however, submits that since the rejection
order per se is not under challenge before this Court, this Court may refrain from
entering into the validity of the minutes of the Review Board.
16 . This submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot detain this Court. It is
trite that procedural technicalities cannot be permitted to overshadow substantive
justice, particularly where the issue concerns personal liberty. The petitioner
approached this Court complaining that his case had not been considered at all.
During pendency of the proceedings, the State produced the decision of rejection
before this Court. Once the materials forming the basis of rejection have been placed
on record and examined by this Court, relegating the petitioner to institute yet another
proceeding challenging the rejection order separately would merely prolong the
injustice already suffered by him. To drive the petitioner to yet another round of
litigation on a purely technical ground, despite the entire decision-making record
having been placed before this Court, would amount to sacrificing substantive justice
at the altar of procedural formality.
17 . The powers of a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are sufficiently
wide to reach injustice wherever it is found. In
Dwarka Nath -Vs-. Income Tax
, reported in
Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur and another AIR
Page No.# 14/15
1966 SC 81 , the Apex Court observed that the amplitude of jurisdiction under Article
226 is designed to ensure that injustice is remedied wherever discovered. Hyper-
technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat the cause of justice where the
materials on record themselves unmistakably reveal arbitrariness and absence of
application of mind.
18 . The infirmity in the present case is not merely that the petitioner’s request for
remission was rejected. The more fundamental defect lies in the fact that the
petitioner’s case was never truly considered on its own merits at all. The records
reveal absence of any individualized assessment and complete non-application of mind
to the relevant factors governing remission. Such a decision-making process cannot
withstand judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19 . Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner’s claim for remission has not received an individualized
consideration in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015 and the governing
principles laid down by the Apex Court. The materials on record rather indicate that
the petitioner’s case was dealt with as part of a generalized exercise undertaken by
the Review Board, thereby defeating the requirement of fair and reasoned
consideration inherent in the process of remission.
20 . Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities
to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and independently, strictly in
accordance with the prevailing Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015 and the
applicable principles governing remission, uninfluenced by the generalized
observations contained in the minutes of the Review Board meeting dated 19.03.2026,
within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
21 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
Page No.# 15/15
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Pranab
Kumar
Deka
Digitally signed
by Pranab
Kumar Deka
Date:
2026.05.12
16:58:56 +05'30'