Heinous nature of crime cannot be the sole ground for rejecting or deferring a remission proposal.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the nature of the crime can be the sole ground for deferring or rejecting a remission proposal.

The court held

The Court held that the Review Board failed to consider germane factors and acted mechanically.

It also directed

It ordered the Inspector General of Prisons to resubmit all four proposals to the Review Board by July 2026. The Court specifically directed the State to obtain a fresh, reasoned opinion from the Presiding Judge for Md. Moynuddin and commanded the Board to strictly adhere to the 2015 OM and established precedents (Laxman Naskar factors) during re-consideration. The writ petitions were disposed of with the direction that final decisions be communicated to the convicts with notice of their right to challenge rejections.

01Facts

Four life convicts (petitioners) challenged the decisions of the State Level Review Board ("Review Board") regarding their premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC (now Section 473 of the BNSS).

In three cases (W.P.[C] 6283/2025, 5946/2025, 5999/2025), the Review Board deferred consideration of remission for two years.

p. 12, 14, 16

In the fourth case (W.P.[C] 524/2026), involving a 75-year-old convict whose death sentence was previously commuted to life, the Board deferred the case for two years on 19.03.2026 despite favorable conduct reports and a positive judicial opinion.

pp. 19-20

The petitioners contended the Board failed to apply relevant legal factors, relying solely on the "heinous nature" of the crimes or vague judicial opinions.

pp. 20-21

02Issues

i.1. Whether the nature of the crime can be the sole ground for deferring or rejecting a remission proposal.

p. 20, 34

ii.2. Whether the Review Board is bound by an indecisive or mechanical opinion from the Presiding Judge.

p. 29, 32

iii.3. Whether the Review Board must consider specific factors like age (over 75 years) and individual merit rather than rejecting proposals in a wholesale manner.

p. 25, 31

03Law Applied

Section 432 of the CrPC regarding the power to remit sentences.

p. 21

Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, which established five factors for remission: [a] individual act vs. societal impact; [b] chance of recurrence; [c] loss of potentiality to commit crime; [d] purpose of continued incarceration; and [e] socio-economic conditions.

p. 28

Sangeet v. State of Haryana, mandating case-to-case consideration.

p. 24

Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that the nature of the offence cannot be the sole ground for denying remission.

p. 34

State’s Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015 provided additional guidelines regarding convicts over 75 years of age and the necessity of Medical Board reports.

p. 25

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions

Section 34 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 201 Section 302 Section 326 Section 377 Section 436

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 235 Section 313 Section 432 Section 433 Section 437

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 473 Section 475

Prisons Act, 1894 Section 3 Section 59

04Reasoning

The court found the Review Board’s decisions legally flawed on several counts. First, the Board deferred remission for two petitioners solely because of the "heinous nature" of their crimes, which contradicts the holistic assessment required by Rohit Chaturvedi.

pp. 32-34

Second, in Md. Moynuddin’s case, the Board deferred the proposal due to an "unclear" judicial opinion rather than requesting a fresh, reasoned opinion as required under the principles of Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh.

p. 32

Third, regarding the 75-year-old petitioner (W.P.[C] 524/2026), the Board ignored its own 2015 Policy which mandates obtaining a Medical Board report for elderly convicts.

p. 33

Finally, the Minutes from March 2026 revealed the Board considered 89 cases en masse, failing the "case-to-case" scrutiny mandated by Sangeet and the 2015 OM.

p. 31