By Binny Yadav
In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court has expanded the government’s authority to grant remission of sentences, allowing state governments to exercise this power suo motu—without requiring convicts to formally apply. Delivered by a bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, this ruling marks a shift from previous judicial interpretations and strengthens the principles of reformative justice.
While legal experts and human rights activists hail it as a progressive step towards ensuring access to justice for those lacking legal awareness, critics warn of potential misuse, fearing the premature release of dangerous criminals. The ruling has sparked intense debate over public safety, transparency, and accountability in the remission process.
The Legal Framework Of Remission
Remission refers to the reduction of a convict’s sentence, allowing early release without overturning the conviction. In India, remission is governed by key legal provisions:
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 432: Empowers the government to suspend or remit sentences, with or without conditions, in consultation with the convicting court.
- Section 433-A: Imposes restrictions on remission for life convicts in cases where the death penalty was an option, mandating at least 14 years of actual incarceration before consideration.
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Section 473: Retains the remission provisions of the CrPC.
- Section 475: Mirrors Section 433-A, ensuring that life convicts for heinous crimes are not arbitrarily released.
Key Directives Of The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The February 18 judgment introduces several transformative changes to remission policies:
- Suo motu consideration: Governments must proactively review remission-eligible cases instead of waiting for convicts to apply, ensuring justice for those unaware of their rights.
- Mandatory state policies: All states and Union Territories must draft clear remission policies within two months, preventing arbitrary decisions and establishing uniform guidelines.
- Transparency and right to appeal: Authorities must inform convicts of remission decisions. If denied, prisoners must be given clear reasons and the right to challenge the rejection through legal recourse.
“By making remission proactive rather than application-based, the ruling ensures justice reaches even those without legal awareness or resources.”
A Departure From Past Rulings
This decision marks a significant shift from earlier Supreme Court verdicts that restricted state governments’ remission powers:
- Sangeet vs State of Haryana (2013): Required remission to be initiated only through a convict’s application, limiting state discretion. The new ruling overturns this, enabling governments to act independently.
- Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State of Gujarat (2024): Stressed that remission conditions must be clearly defined to prevent arbitrary grants. The current judgment reinforces this by mandating structured remission policies across states.
“This ruling corrects past judicial constraints and ensures remission powers are exercised fairly and consistently.”
Far-Reaching Implications
The SC’s verdict will have a profound impact on India’s criminal justice system:
1. Advancing reformative justice
The ruling reinforces the idea that prison is not just for punishment, but also rehabilitation. By making remission more accessible, it incentivizes good behaviour and reintegration into society.
2. Reducing prison overcrowding
India’s prisons operate at overcapacity, creating inhumane conditions. A streamlined remission process could decongest jails, ensuring better resource allocation and inmate welfare.
3. Strengthening uniformity and accountability
By mandating structured remission policies, the ruling seeks to prevent favouritism and political bias in early release decisions, ensuring transparency and fairness. “A uniform remission framework will prevent arbitrary decisions and ensure justice is served consistently across states.”
Concerns Over Public Safety
Despite its reformative potential, the ruling has raised concerns about the risk of premature release of dangerous criminals. Critics argue that:
- Without strict oversight, remission could be misused, leading to the release of prisoners convicted of heinous crimes.
- Public safety could be compromised if high-risk individuals are granted remission without careful assessment.
Legal experts stress the need for robust safeguards to prevent misuse while ensuring justice is served.
“While remission is a crucial tool of reformative justice, it must be exercised responsibly to prevent unintended threats to public safety.”
The Road Ahead
As state governments begin drafting remission policies in line with Supreme Court directives, the long-term impact of this ruling will depend on:
1. How effectively states implement these policies.
2. Whether adequate checks and balances are established.
3. If the process remains transparent and accountable.
By balancing reformative justice with structured oversight, the Supreme Court has laid the foundation for a fairer and more consistent remission system in India. However, its success will hinge on execution, not just intent.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator