Rejection of Remission Based Solely on Review Board’s Adverse Recommendation Without Objective Material is Manifestly Arbitrary

The petitioner was convicted on June 28, 2013, for offences including murder (Section 302/149 IPC) and attempted murder (Section 307/149 IPC), receiving a life sentence.

His appeals were dismissed by the High Court in 2019 and the Supreme Court in 2022.

Having served over 15 years of actual incarceration with good conduct, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Raipur, and the Court of Conviction (First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar) both provided positive recommendations for his premature release/remission in 2025.

The State Government rejected the remission claim on March 22, 2026, based solely on an adverse recommendation from the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board.

The petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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

2. Whether the adverse recommendation of the Punishment Review Board can override the positive recommendations of the Jail Authorities and the Court of Conviction without specific tangible material.

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

The reformative object of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by the Notification dated April 23, 2025, which removed previous bars on remission.

Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, requiring assessment of the nature of the crime, likelihood of recidivism, and potential for rehabilitation.

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, the court established that while remission is discretionary, it is subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, and policies must be applied consistently and fairly.

The Court noted that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria for remission, having served the requisite 15 years and maintained a record of satisfactory reformation.

The Court observed that the State’s rejection order was "founded on a general assessment" and lacked any "objective material or specific adverse circumstance" to justify ignoring the positive reports from the convicting Court and Jail Superintendent.

Relying on the precedent in Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reasoned that the State must exercise its discretion in a non-arbitrary manner.

By giving "overriding weight" to the Review Board’s adverse opinion without assigned reasons, the State defeated the reformative purpose of the 2025 Rule amendments.

The Court concluded that the decision-making process was flawed as it failed to balance the gravity of the past offence against the petitioner’s present reformation.

The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, subject to standard conditions under the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules.