Ordinary jail remissions cannot reduce a fixed 25-year sentence cap imposed to honor sovereign extradition assurances.

The Petitioner, Abu Salem, was extradited from Portugal to India in November 2005 following a solemn sovereign assurance given by the Government of India in 2002 that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisonment exceeding 25 years

He was subsequently convicted in two separate TADA cases (1993 and 2006) and sentenced to life imprisonment in both

On appeal, the Supreme Court of India, by judgment dated July 11, 2022, commuted his life sentences to a total of 25 years to align with the sovereign assurance

The Supreme Court directed the Government to consider his remission under Sections 432 and 433 of the Cr.P.C. one month prior to the completion of the 25-year period

The Petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus for immediate release, arguing that his 25-year sentence—when aggregated with undertrial detention, post-conviction incarceration, and earned jail remissions for good conduct—was completed by March 2025

The court primarily applied the principles of statutory remission and commutation under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

It relied on the doctrine established in Swami Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, which distinguishes between administrative jail remissions (earned for conduct) and court-imposed fixed-term sentences

The court further referenced Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana regarding the prohibition of "double benefit" under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. for set-off

Additionally, the court emphasized the binding nature of international sovereign assurances under the Extradition Act, 1962, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Petitioner’s own case

The High Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that "earned remissions" should reduce the 25-year cap. The court reasoned that the 25-year limit is not a standard sentence but a substantive "ceiling" and a "massive remission" in itself, necessitated by international treaty obligations

The court held that administrative remissions under the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, do not ipso facto reduce a sentence capped by a judicial order intended to satisfy a sovereign assurance

The court highlighted that the Supreme Court's 2022 directions were explicit: the executive's duty to consider remission under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. arises only one month before the completion of the 25 years

Since the Petitioner was arrested on November 11, 2005, the 25-year period concludes in November 2030

To allow ordinary jail remissions to further truncate this period would violate the Supreme Court’s specific mandate and the "grievousness of the offence"

The court concluded that the 25-year term expires in November 2030, and any exercise of statutory power for remission or release by the Central Government must occur one month prior to that date, as directed by the Supreme Court

The current detention was held to be authorized and legal, rendering the petition premature and misconceived