REMISSION AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS

REMISSION AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS

NEWS: The Supreme Court ruled that appropriate governments must consider the early release of eligible convicts without waiting for them or their relatives to apply for remission.

 

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Background of the Case

  • The case, “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail,” is a suo motu case that the Supreme Court initiated in 2021 to address the issue of overcrowding in prisons.
  • The ruling came as part of the court’s effort to find a solution to the prison system’s struggles with overcrowding, ensuring that prisoners eligible for remission are considered for early release.
  • Supreme Court's Ruling: The Court noted that several states already have remission policies in place that lay out eligibility criteria for remission.
    • As a result, it held that states must exercise their discretion and consider all eligible convicts for premature release, even if they do not apply for remission themselves.
    • The Court also emphasized that failing to do so would be discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution of India.

 

Reasons for the Shift

The Court justified its shift in approach by highlighting that:

  • Prison manuals in many states already require prison authorities to initiate proceedings for granting remission.
  • In the earlier cases, the Court had not considered a scenario where a policy for remission was already in place, making the requirement for an application by the convict redundant.
  • The previous rulings aimed to prevent arbitrary releases, especially on festive occasions, but with structured remission policies, the risk of arbitrary releases can be mitigated.

 

Article 72: President’s Power to Grant Pardon

  • Article 72 of the Indian Constitution gives the President the authority to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, commute, or remit sentences, in certain cases.
    • The President can exercise these powers in the following situations:
      • Punishment by a Court-Martial 
      • Offenses Under Union’s Executive Power 
      • Death Penalty Cases 

 

Article 161: Governor’s Power to Grant Pardon

  • Article 161 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor of a state to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, remit, or commute sentences.
    • Limitations of the Governor’s Power
      • Applicable only to convictions under state laws.
      • Cannot be used in cases involving court-martial (military court) sentences.
      • Does not extend to offenses under the Union’s executive power (handled by the President under Article 72).

 

Famous remission cases in India

  • Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980): This case upheld Section 433A that remission is not a right and should be given on the basis of well-defined rules. 

·         SC in this case held that The President and Governors’ power of clemency (Article 72 and 161) cannot be exercised that overrides this provision. 

  • Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000): This case laid down the guidelines for granting remission to life convicts. 

·         Key considerations for remission

      • Whether the criminal poses a threat to society after release.
      • Whether the crime was committed under exceptional circumstances.
      • The age and health of prisoners.
      • Whether the prisoner’s release would be in public interest. 
      • The conduct of the prisoner during incarceration.
  • Union of India vs V. Sriharan (2015): In this case, the court noted that States cannot unilaterally grant remission without central approval to convicts sentenced under Section 302 IPC (murder) or other central laws. 

·         It set clear boundaries and established that remission has some restrictions when dealing with serious crime like terrorism. 

 

Legal Basis for Remission

The legal authority to grant remission is derived from Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which has now been replaced by Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). This provision empowers the state governments, Union Territories (UTs), and the Central government to grant premature release to convicts based on prescribed guidelines and considerations.

However, for convicts serving life sentences for crimes punishable by death, the law mandates that they must serve a minimum of 14 years in prison before becoming eligible for remission. This ensures that the gravity of their offense is accounted for before considering any reduction in their sentence.

 

Mandatory Formulation of a Remission Policy

The Supreme Court has directed that all states and Union Territories must formulate a remission policy within two months if they do not already have one in place. The remission policy should be structured to ensure consistency and fairness in granting remission.

Key requirements for a remission policy include:

  • Clearly defined eligibility criteria: The policy must specify which categories of convicts are eligible for remission and under what circumstances.
  • Elimination of political or arbitrary decision-making: The process should be based on legal principles and objective factors rather than political influence or favoritism.
  • Uniform application of remission laws: The policy should ensure that all eligible convicts are considered fairly and that no individual is granted or denied remission based on selective or discretionary decisions.

 

Elimination of Political Interference in Remission Decisions

The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to remove political influences from remission decisions, citing past controversial cases where political considerations compromised the integrity of the process.

  1. Bilkis Bano Case (2002 Gujarat Riots):
    • In this case, 11 convicts were granted premature release, raising widespread public outrage and concerns about political interference.
    • The Supreme Court later revoked their remission after determining that the decision was not legally sound and involved improper government intervention.
  2. Anand Mohan Case (Bihar, 2023):
    • A controversial decision was made to amend prison rules specifically to facilitate the release of Anand Mohan, a former politician convicted in a high-profile murder case.
    • This amendment was seen as politically motivated, and the matter is currently under judicial review, questioning the legitimacy of the remission process in such cases.

These instances highlight the urgent need for a structured, unbiased remission system that cannot be manipulated for political gains.

 

Ensuring Fairness and Transparency in Remission Decisions

1. Obligation to Consider All Eligible Convicts

  • If a remission policy exists, the government must proactively review all eligible cases rather than relying on individual applications from convicts or their families.
  • Convicts should not have to submit separate applications for consideration; instead, prison authorities must automatically process all eligible cases.
  • Failure to apply remission policies fairly would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law.

2. Justification for Granting or Denying Remission

  • Every remission decision—whether granted or denied—must be accompanied by a clear and reasoned explanation.
  • The decision must be promptly communicated to the convict to ensure transparency and provide them with an opportunity to challenge the outcome if necessary.
  • Since denial of remission affects a convict’s personal liberty, it directly relates to Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
  • Therefore, remission decisions must follow principles of natural justice, ensuring that convicts are treated fairly and given an opportunity to be heard.

 

Conditional Remission and Its Restrictions

Remission may be granted with certain conditions to ensure that the convict’s release does not lead to criminal relapse or public harm. These conditions should:

  • Be designed to prevent criminal tendencies and ensure successful rehabilitation.
  • Not be overly harsh or vague, as this would make it practically impossible for convicts to benefit from remission.

Authorities must carefully consider multiple factors before granting remission, including:

  • The nature of the crime committed.
  • The convict’s past criminal history and any likelihood of reoffending.
  • The impact on victims and overall public safety, ensuring that remission does not compromise justice or endanger society.

 

Implementation and Monitoring Mechanisms

1. Role of Legal Services Authorities

  • Prison authorities have an obligation to inform convicts about their right to challenge the rejection of remission.
  • District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) will:
    • Maintain records of eligible convicts and track their remission status.
    • Ensure that state remission policies are being followed consistently across all cases.
  • The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been directed to:
    • Share the Supreme Court’s judgment on remission with all state and UT legal bodies, ensuring uniform application of the law.

2. Digital Tracking for Transparency

  • A real-time digital portal will be established to track remission cases across the country.
  • This system will ensure accountability and prevent undue delays in the remission process by making records publicly accessible to relevant legal authorities.

 

Protection Against Arbitrary Cancellation of Remission

  • Once remission is granted, it cannot be revoked arbitrarily without following due process.
  • If a convict violates remission conditions, they must be given a hearing before any cancellation decision is made.
  • Any cancellation order must include specific, well-reasoned justifications to ensure that the process remains transparent and legally sound.

 

Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for Remission Cases

The Supreme Court has endorsed the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) developed by NALSA to ensure uniformity in remission decisions. The Court has directed that:

  • The SoP must be fully implemented across all states and Union Territories.
  • The SoP includes specific provisions such as:

·         Ensuring all convicts are informed of their right to challenge a rejection.

·         Speeding up the process of obtaining the opinion of the trial judge when considering remission requests.

 

What is the Law on Remission?

  • The law governing the remission of sentences is enshrined under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
  • These provisions grant state governments the authority to reduce a convict's sentence, allowing for premature release.
  • However, there are some constraints:
    • Convicts serving life sentences or convicted of serious crimes (e.g., death penalty cases) cannot be released until they have served at least 14 years in prison, as per Section 433A of the CrPC and Section 475 of the BNSS.
    • Remission can only be granted when an application is made to the government.

 

Prison Population in India

  • As of December 2022, India’s prison population stood at over 5.7 lakh, which is a 131.4% occupancy rate.
  • Overcrowding remains a significant issue, with most prisoners being undertrials (75.8% of inmates).
  • The Supreme Court's decision could help address this issue, especially as the number of prisoners granted remission has increased.
  • In 2022, over 5,000 prisoners were released prematurely under remission policies.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directives aim to establish a structured, transparent, and fair remission system that upholds constitutional rights while ensuring public safety. By enforcing clear policies, eliminating political interference, and implementing digital tracking mechanisms, the remission process will become more equitable and accountable.

 

Source https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/governments-obliged-to-consider-remission-of-eligible-convicts-without-waiting-for-application-sc/article69235035.ece