Prisoners in Bihar must receive remission records and a hearing before deductions, Patna HC directs

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated 04.11.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 529 of 2021, arising from Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, the Patna High Court registered the present suo motu writ petition to examine the operation of remission provisions under the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 (“the Manual”).

The Court appointed an amicus curiae and heard submissions from the State, assisted by the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services.

The proceedings concerned the calculation and grant of ordinary and special remission, the composition and functioning of the Remission Committee, the position of illiterate or non-vocationally trained prisoners, and the extent of executive discretion in remission and premature-release decisions.

Whether the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 prescribes a legally valid method for calculating ordinary remission, including the applicable monthly and annual ceilings and the period from which remission is to be calculated?

Whether the composition of the Remission Committee, consisting of prison officials, makes the grant of remission selective, discriminatory, or arbitrary?

Whether Rules 428 and 429 of the Manual, particularly the additional remission linked to educational or vocational assistance, create an impermissible classification between prisoners?

Whether the remission provisions disadvantage prisoners who are illiterate or lack vocational knowledge?

Whether the remission provisions are excessively selective or confer unguided and excessive discretion upon the executive?

The Court applied Rules 405, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 415, 417, 424, and 427–429 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012.

Rules 409, 411, 414, 415 and 417 prescribe ordinary remission based on conduct, work performance, and work performed on Sundays and holidays, subject to a maximum of seven days per calendar month and eighty-four days per year.

Rule 405 imposes an overall ceiling of one-third of the sentence on remission.

The Court further relied on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, requiring non-discriminatory treatment, procedural fairness, transparency, and judicial review of arbitrary remission decisions.

For premature release of life convicts, the Court relied on Rules 474–487 of the Manual, the principles in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, and the Supreme Court’s direction requiring consideration of eligible cases suo motu.

It also referred to Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, and Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0757/2026, concerning restrictions and policy considerations governing premature release.

The Court held that ordinary remission is governed by fixed quantitative criteria: two days per calendar month for good conduct and institutional participation, two days for satisfactory performance of assigned work, and one day for work on Sundays and holidays, subject to the prescribed monthly and annual ceilings.

Calculation begins on the first day of the calendar month following the sentence, with no remission for the broken month of sentence; qualifying periods spent on leave or parole do not interrupt computation.

Although the Remission Committee is composed entirely of executive prison officials, the Court found that this did not, by itself, make the system arbitrary because eligibility is governed by objective criteria and entries are required in the History Ticket.

However, discriminatory application or deviation from the prescribed criteria remains reviewable under Articles 14 and 21.

Regarding special remission, the Court accepted the State’s clarification that Rule 428 is available to all convicted prisoners without an educational qualification.

Rule 429 was treated as a motivational incentive and not as a bar to ordinary remission or other forms of special remission for prisoners lacking education or vocational training.

The Court nevertheless directed the State to examine an alternative pathway for illiterate prisoners to earn comparable additional remission.

Finally, the Court concluded that the scheme is structured rather than absolutely selective: executive discretion exists, but is constrained by statutory ceilings, recorded reasons, information rights, natural justice, and judicial review.

It held that ordinary remission must be calculated according to the prescribed conduct- and work-based scales, that the executive composition of the Remission Committee does not by itself invalidate the process, that uneducated and non-vocationally trained prisoners remain eligible for ordinary and other forms of special remission, and that the rules do not confer unbridled executive power.

The Court directed that prisoners be supplied duplicate History Tickets, including entries regarding remission granted or forfeited, and that any deduction or seizure of remission follow a hearing and a reasoned order.

It made recommendations concerning timelines for premature-release reports, grievance mechanisms, treatment of under-trial remission, protection of illiterate prisoners, publication of life-convict data, and possible amendments to the Manual.

The State was directed to place the updated list of thirty-two pending cases before the State Sentence Remission Review Board within four weeks and to file a compliance report within four months.

The suo motu writ petition was accordingly disposed of.