REJECTION OF REMISSION BASED SOLELY ON ADVERSE REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION DESPITE JUDICIAL APPROVAL IS ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE.

The petitioner was convicted in 2013 for offences including murder (Section 302/149 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment

After his appeals were dismissed by the High Court and Supreme Court, and having remained in custody since November 7, 2010, the petitioner applied for premature release/remission under the Prison Rules

The Superintendent of Central Jail and the Court of conviction both provided positive recommendations for remission based on the petitioner's good conduct

However, the State Government, vide order dated March 22, 2026, rejected the claim solely based on an adverse recommendation by the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board

The petitioner challenged this rejection as arbitrary and contrary to the amended Prison Rules

1. Whether the State Government’s rejection of the petitioner’s remission claim was arbitrary and lacked objective basis

2. Whether a life convict is entitled to a fair and non-arbitrary consideration for remission once they satisfy the requisite period of incarceration and exhibit good conduct

Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 Cr.P.C.) regarding the power to suspend or remit sentences

Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 (as amended in 2025), which removed earlier bars on remission for certain categories

Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, which mandates examining the likelihood of recidivism and rehabilitation

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., establishing that remission orders are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness

State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which emphasizes fair and consistent application of remission policies

The Court observed that the petitioner had completed the requisite period of incarceration and had earned positive recommendations from both the jail authorities and the sentencing court

The State’s rejection was deemed unsustainable because it failed to provide any objective or tangible material proving the petitioner posed a threat to society

The Court reasoned that the State cannot rely exclusively on the Punishment Review Board's adverse opinion while ignoring the reformative object of the law and the favourable reports of rehabilitation

Furthermore, the 2025 amendment to the Prison Rules specifically removed previous bars to remission, which the State failed to adequately consider

Relying on the principle of consistency established in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court found that the rejection was founded on irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant ones

The High Court quashed the State's rejection order dated March 22, 2026

The respondents were directed to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case and complies with standard release conditions