Pending remission claims must be decided expeditiously on their merits in accordance with law.

The petitioner, a life convict lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment on 30 January 2010.

His appeal was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 4 December 2014, and his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27 July 2015.

He claimed to have undergone more than 16 years and 4 months of actual incarceration and more than 21 years including earned remission.

He applied for remission of the unexpired sentence on 27 February 2025 under Section 432 of the CrPC, now Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023.

The sentencing court subsequently expressed no objection to his release upon completion of 20 years of sentence, subject to the applicable rules and the absence of any other pending criminal case.

Although the petitioner’s case was forwarded to the competent authority and further reports and opinions were sought, no final decision was taken.

The matter was returned for rectification of deficiencies on 25 March 2026 and remained pending thereafter.

The petitioner therefore invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction for expeditious consideration of his remission/premature-release application under Section 432 CrPC/Section 473 BNSS and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968.

The Court exercised its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to ensure consideration of the petitioner’s pending statutory claim.

Section 432 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the competent Government to suspend or remit the whole or part of a sentence, subject to the statutory procedure, including consideration of the opinion of the sentencing court.

Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 governs consideration of eligible prisoners for remission/premature release.

The Court also took note of the constitutional requirement that such claims be considered fairly, objectively and without arbitrary or unexplained delay under Articles 14 and 21.

The petitioner relied on In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 349, for the principle that State authorities must implement release-related policies consistently with constitutional guarantees.

The petitioner had placed material before the Court showing prolonged incarceration, a pending remission application, the sentencing court’s favourable opinion subject to applicable rules, and continuing administrative correspondence without a final decision.

The State counsel also acknowledged that the remission case remained pending.

In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to require the competent respondent authority to discharge its statutory duty and decide the petitioner’s claim on its own merits and in accordance with law.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s eligibility for release, determine the quantum of remission, or treat the sentencing court’s opinion as conclusive.

Its intervention was confined to remedying the delay by prescribing an outer timeframe for consideration.

The Court therefore granted procedural relief for expeditious decision-making but did not order the petitioner’s release or grant remission itself.