Authorities must expeditiously decide pending remission applications where prisoners have completed substantial sentences and received favorable trial court recommendations.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 02.04.2009 and is currently serving his sentence in Central Jail, Bilaspur.

He has completed over 21 years of incarceration, including remissions.

Although the petitioner applied for remission—and the Trial Court provided a positive recommendation for his early release on 19.05.2023—no final decision was taken by the State authorities despite the completion of police verification and other procedural formalities.

Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his remission application.

1. Whether the respondent authorities' failure to decide on the petitioner's remission application despite a positive trial court recommendation and 21 years of incarceration constitutes actionable inaction.

2. Whether a mandatory time-bound direction should be issued to the State to dispose of the pending application for premature release.

The court primarily applied Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding to Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which empowers the appropriate government to remit sentences.

The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address administrative inaction.

It also relied on the principle that applications for premature release/remission deserve "expeditious consideration," especially where the convict has completed a substantial portion of their sentence and obtained favorable recommendations from the judiciary.

The Court observed that the petitioner has been in jail since 2009 and his total incarceration period has crossed 21 years.

Critically, the Court noted that the Trial Court had already given a positive recommendation for his release in mid-2023.

The High Court found that the subsequent correspondence and police verification had been completed, yet the State had failed to pass a final order, which the Court characterized as "inaction" and "arbitrariness".

Without delving into the merits of whether remission must be granted, the Court reasoned that the delay in administrative decision-making violated the petitioner's right to have his legal application considered in a timely manner.

The Court directed the respondents to decide the application for remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. / Section 473 BNSS strictly in accordance with the law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.