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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the impugned order lacked objective consideration and defeated the reformative purpose of the law

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

¶ 4

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

¶ 4

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

¶ 4, 7

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

¶ 4, 5, 8

02Issues

i.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

¶ 8, 12

ii.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

¶ 9, 11

03Law Applied

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

¶ 9, 10

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 10

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

¶ 8, 12

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

¶ 9, 11

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

¶ 12, 13

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the impugned order lacked objective consideration and defeated the reformative purpose of the law

¶ 12, 13

¶ 14, 15

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF