Remission Authority Must Consider Parity and Adequate Reasoning in Sentencing Court’s Opinion for Premature Release.

The petitioner, Shrawan Kumar, was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and is currently undergoing a life sentence.

He applied for premature release/remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

On May 25, 2026, the Sessions Judge of Janjgir-Champa issued a negative opinion regarding his release.

The petitioner challenged this memo via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the opinion was cryptic, lacked reasoning, and ignored the principle of parity, as a co-accused (Rakesh Kenwat) in the same case had received a positive recommendation for remission.

1. Whether the negative opinion rendered by the sentencing court under Section 473(2) of the BNSS was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of adequate reasoning and failure to consider established judicial parameters.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh consideration of his remission plea based on the principle of parity with a co-accused who received a positive recommendation.

Section 473(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 432(2) of the CrPC, 1973), which requires the presiding judge of the sentencing court to provide an opinion on remission requests.

The mandatory parameters for evaluating premature release established in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595 and reaffirmed in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 12 SCC 52, which necessitate a reasoned assessment of factors such as the nature of the crime and the potential for recidivism.

The Court examined the petitioner’s grievance that the Sessions Judge’s opinion was rendered mechanically without independent application of the Laxman Naskar factors.

A critical point of contention was the "plea of parity"; the petitioner’s counsel demonstrated that the same presiding officer had granted a positive opinion to a co-accused, Rakesh Kenwat, while denying the petitioner, despite both being convicted in the same occurrence.

While the State argued that the judicial opinion is merely one factor for the executive's final decision, the Court determined that the glaring inconsistency between the treatment of co-accused persons required a fresh objective evaluation by the competent authority to avoid arbitrariness.

The Respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s application for remission/premature release by specifically examining the plea regarding the positive opinion rendered for the co-accused, Rakesh Kenwat, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.