Rejection of remission based solely on Review Board’s negative feedback without objective reasoning is arbitrary and unsustainable.

The petitioner was convicted in 2013 for murder and related offenses under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 450, 148, 506 Part II, and 323/149 of the IPC, receiving a life sentence

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

By 2026, the petitioner had served over 15 years of actual imprisonment (19 years including remission) with good conduct

While the Jail Superintendent and the Trial Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar) provided positive recommendations for remission, the State Government rejected the application via an order dated 22.03.2026 based solely on a negative recommendation from the State Punishment Review Board

1. Whether the State Government’s rejection of the petitioner’s remission claim solely on the basis of the Review Board’s negative recommendation was arbitrary and legally sustainable

2. Whether the reformative object of the remission policy under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023, and the amended Chhattisgarh Prison Rules necessitates an objective consideration of a convict's reformation and jail conduct

The court primarily applied Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the power to remit sentences, read with the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025

Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, which mandates assessing the possibility of recurrence of crime and potential for future crime

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., establishing that remission orders are subject to judicial review if they suffer from non-application of mind or arbitrariness

State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which requires the application of remission policies in a fair and non-discriminatory manner

The court reasoned that while the power to grant remission is discretionary, it must be guided by the constitutional mandate of fairness under Article 21

The State failed to assign cogent or specific reasons for finding the petitioner "unsuitable," ignoring his long incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, and the positive judicial recommendation from the convicting court

The court emphasized that the 2025 amendment to the Prison Rules removed previous bars on remission, underscoring a shift toward a reformative rather than retributive philosophy

By relying mechanically on the Review Board's adverse opinion without weighing it against objective evidence of reformation, the State’s decision-making process was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with established precedents

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the State's order dated 22.03.2026, and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, subject to prescribed terms and conditions