Authorities must decide remission applications within a reasonable time to protect the statutory right to liberty.

The petitioner, Sundar, was convicted and has undergone more than 16 years and 06 months of actual imprisonment (and over 21 years including remission).

In December 2024, he submitted an application for remission of his remaining sentence under Section 432 of the CrPC (now Section 473 of the BNSS).

Despite the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, issuing a "no objection" memo on 30.12.2024 and the matter being forwarded to the Director General of Prisons on 07.01.2025, no final decision was taken by the State authorities for over a year.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ for his release or a direction to decide his remission claim.

Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay by the State authorities in deciding a remission application violates the legal rights of a convict?

Whether the court should direct the competent authority to decide the pending remission application within a specific timeframe?

The court primarily considered Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its corresponding provision, Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which govern the power of the State to suspend or remit sentences.

The court applied the principle that matters concerning remission directly relate to the personal liberty of a convict, requiring authorities to act with "due promptitude" and within a "reasonable time" to ensure the statutory object of remission is not defeated.

The court observed that the petitioner’s application had progressed through the necessary procedural hurdles, including obtaining a favorable opinion from the sentencing court's successor.

It reasoned that while the merits of a remission claim fall strictly within the executive's domain under the relevant statutory framework and policy guidelines, the State cannot justify a year-long delay when a convict has already undergone substantial incarceration.

The court noted the State Counsel's submission that the matter was "under consideration" and concluded that judicial intervention was necessary to mandate a time-bound resolution to prevent the arbitrary prolongation of the petitioner's detention.

The court ordered that this decision must be made independently on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law and policy, and completed within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified order.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner's eligibility for release.