Non-speaking executive orders rejecting remission recommendation violate principles of natural justice and are subject to judicial review.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 120B and 302 of the IPC for murder by a Special Judge in Dehradun in 2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment

Following 22 years of incarceration, he sought premature release. The State of Uttarakhand recommended his release, but the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), acting under Section 477 of the BNSS (due to the CBI investigation), issued an impugned letter dated 09.07.2025 disallowing the recommendation without providing specific reasons

Procedurally, the Court had previously clarified that the State where the trial occurs (Uttarakhand) is the "appropriate government" per the Bilkis precedent

The petitioner challenged the MHA’s rejection as arbitrary and sought parity with a co-accused already released by the State of Uttar Pradesh

1. Whether the impugned letter of the MHA rejecting the remission recommendation is legally sustainable given its lack of reasoning and alleged non-application of mind

2. Whether the "heinousness of the crime" can serve as the sole criterion for denying premature release after a convict has undergone prolonged incarceration and demonstrated good conduct

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to remission based on parity with a released co-accused and the reformative theory of punishment

The Court applied Section 477 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring Central Government concurrence for remission in CBI cases

It relied on Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B. regarding the five-factor test for remission: individual nature of crime, chance of recurrence, loss of potentiality for crime, purpose of further confinement, and socio-economic conditions

It further cited State (NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj to distinguish remission from pardon and commutation

and Satish v. State of U.P., which held that the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole basis for refusing premature release

The reformative philosophy was anchored in Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P.

The Court found the MHA’s letter "ex facie non-speaking" and "cryptic," noting it failed to disclose any basis for disagreeing with the State’s recommendation, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the requirement for reasoned executive orders

The Court rejected the Union’s defense that the crime's heinous nature precluded remission, reasoning that gravity is considered during sentencing and cannot be reused at the remission stage to "reconvert remission into a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt"

Applying Plato’s "curative theory," the Court observed that since the petitioner’s conduct was good [p. 28] and he had served 22 years—five years more than a co-accused already released—continued incarceration served only retribution, not reformation

The Court declined a remand to the MHA, noting that since the Union had already articulated its firm opposition on merits, a remand would be a "futile" and "empty formality"

The Court quashed the impugned letter dated 09.07.2025 and directed that the petitioner be treated as prematurely released. Since the petitioner was already on interim bail, the Court ordered that his surrender was no longer required