Rejection of Remission Solely on Review Board Recommendations Without Reasoned Consideration of Reformative Factors 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 substantive reasoning despite positive recommendations from the judiciary and jail authorities.

The court held

The Court answered that the State’s discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably.

It also directed

The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 22.03.2026. The respondents were directed to extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner and release him forthwith, subject to usual terms and conditions.

01Facts

The petitioner was convicted on 29.06.2013 for offences including murder (Section 302/149 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 28/2011.

p. 2

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

p. 3

Having undergone over 15 years of actual incarceration by 2026, the petitioner sought remission under the Prison Rules.

pp. 2-3

While the Court of conviction (First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar) and the Jail Superintendent provided positive recommendations for his release based on his reformative conduct, the State Government rejected his claim on 22.03.2026.

p. 3, 5

This rejection was based solely on an adverse recommendation by the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board.

p. 3

The petitioner challenged this order as arbitrary.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State Government’s rejection of the petitioner’s remission claim was arbitrary and lacked substantive reasoning despite positive recommendations from the judiciary and jail authorities.

p. 6 / para. 9

ii.2. Whether the State Government is required to exercise its discretionary power of remission under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita/CrPC in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.

p. 7 / para. 11

03Law Applied

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

p. 3, 7

Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 (as amended in 2025), which emphasize a reformative approach to premature release.

p. 6

Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, establishing that remission must consider the likelihood of future crime and reformation.

p. 7

Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which subjects remission orders to judicial review for non-application of mind.

p. 7

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

pp. 7-8

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 148 Section 149 Section 302 Section 307 Section 323 Section 450 Section 506

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the petitioner satisfied the quantitative requirement of 15 years of incarceration and the qualitative requirement of good conduct.

p. 5, 8

The Court reasoned that the State Government failed to assign specific reasons as to why the positive opinions of the convicting Judge and jail authorities were insufficient.

p. 6, 9

The Court noted that the rejection was founded "principally" upon the adverse recommendation of the Review Board without any objective material suggesting the petitioner’s release would be detrimental to society.

p. 6, 9

By ignoring reformative progress and the removal of the earlier statutory bar on remission via the 2025 amendment, the State’s decision-making process was found to be mechanical and unreasoned.

pp. 6-7

The Court also applied the principle of parity with Manoj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, where relief was granted under similar facts.

p. 3, 8