Authorities Must Consider Remission Applications Within a Reasonable Time, Not Leave Them Pending Indefinitely.

The petitioner, a life convict serving his sentence at Medinipur Central Correctional Home for offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sought remission and premature release, asserting that he had served more than 20 years of actual imprisonment.

The State reported that the petitioner’s proposal had been considered and rejected by the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) at its 68th meeting on 6 June 2022; the report also stated that the case would be reconsidered at a future meeting after obtaining fresh reports.

The earlier consideration had not been disclosed in the writ petition, which counsel attributed to a bona fide error.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his remission and premature-release case despite the SSRB’s earlier rejection.

2. Whether the authorities could leave the petitioner’s case pending without a fresh decision, and whether the Court should prescribe a timeframe and procedure for reconsideration.

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its corresponding provision, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with the applicable remission rules, provide for consideration of a prisoner’s remission case.

The Court stated that, although remission is primarily an executive function, the authorities cannot defer consideration indefinitely; delay may deny the prisoner the valuable right to have the case considered under law.

The SSRB’s earlier rejection did not prevent a fresh proposal from being considered. The petitioner’s case had last been considered in June 2022, and the State’s own report contemplated reconsideration following receipt of fresh reports.

Given the passage of approximately four years, the Court held that the authorities could not leave the matter pending indefinitely. It therefore directed a fresh, objective consideration based on the required reports and other relevant matters, without expressing any view on the merits of release or the earlier rejection.

A reasoned order must be passed within six months of communication of the order and communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the remission claim or the earlier rejection.

No order as to costs was made.