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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the power of remission, though discretionary, must be exercised in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

¶ 4

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

¶ 4

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

¶ 4, 8

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

¶ 4, 9

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

¶ 4

02Issues

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

¶ 9

ii.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

¶ 11, 12

03Law Applied

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

¶ 5

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 11

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

¶ 11

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

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 473

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 432

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 506 Section 450 Section 148 Section 302 Section 149 Section 307 Section 323

04Reasoning

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

¶ 8, 12

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

¶ 9, 13

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

¶ 10, 12

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 12, 13