Remission cannot be denied mechanically; authorities must independently assess post-conviction conduct and reformation.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 15 October 1999.

His criminal appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 29 August 2016, and his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2022.

He had undergone more than 16 years and 5 months of actual incarceration and, with earned remission of 5 years, 7 months and 21 days as on 29 July 2026, had completed more than 22 years of imprisonment.

The Jail Superintendent recommended his premature release, and the sentencing court expressed no objection to remission in view of his conduct and good behaviour.

However, the State Sentence Review Board gave a negative recommendation, substantially relying on reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. On that basis, the Under Secretary, Jail Department, rejected the petitioner’s claim for premature release by order dated 12 June 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968.

Whether the order dated 12 June 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s application for premature release was arbitrary, non-speaking and vitiated by non-application of mind because it relied primarily on adverse recommendations without independently assessing the relevant remission factors?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration and release by remission in light of his prolonged incarceration, satisfactory prison conduct, earned remission and the favourable recommendation of the Jail Superintendent and sentencing court?

The Court considered the remission jurisdiction under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to the applicable provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968.

It relied on Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595, which requires consideration of whether the offence was an individual act or affected society at large, the likelihood of recurrence, whether the convict retains the potential to commit crime, whether any useful purpose is served by continued incarceration, and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.

Under Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2017, the opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC must reflect objective application of mind and cannot merely repeat the nature of the offence.

Rajo v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068, establishes that the appropriate Government must independently consider all relevant factors, including post-conviction conduct, and that the opinion of the sentencing judge is only one input.

The Court further relied on State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, and Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, for the principle that remission is discretionary but must be exercised fairly, reasonably, objectively and without reliance on extraneous considerations.

The Court found that the petitioner had undergone substantial actual imprisonment and had earned significant remission, while his prison conduct was satisfactory and no adverse conduct was reported during incarceration or during his parole releases.

The Jail Superintendent’s favourable recommendation and the sentencing court’s absence of objection were relevant considerations. Nevertheless, the competent authority principally relied on the negative recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board, which itself was based on adverse reports, without demonstrating an independent assessment of reformation, present conduct, likelihood of recidivism, rehabilitation prospects or the other Laxman Naskar factors.

The Court held that the gravity of the offence, already reflected in the conviction and sentence, could not by itself justify denial of remission, particularly in the absence of specific and cogent material showing a likelihood of recurrence or disturbance of public peace.

The impugned order was therefore cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking, and failed to satisfy the requirement of a fair and reasoned exercise of remission power.

It accordingly quashed the impugned order.

Considering the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, earned remission, satisfactory conduct, favourable jail recommendation and the absence of material indicating likely recidivism or disturbance of public peace, the Court directed the respondents to reconsider and grant premature release in accordance with the applicable remission policy and law.

It further directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, if he was not required in any other case.

No order as to costs was made.