Remission Plea Can't Be Rejected By Mechanically Relying On DM, SP's Adverse Opinions: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an application for remission or premature release cannot be rejected solely on the basis of mechanical adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police while ignoring favourable recommendations of the Presiding Judge and Jail Superintendent. The Court observed that the appropriate Government is required to independently assess...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an application for remission or premature release cannot be rejected solely on the basis of mechanical adverse opinions of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police while ignoring favourable recommendations of the Presiding Judge and Jail Superintendent. The Court observed that the appropriate Government is required to independently assess all relevant factors governing remission, including the prisoner's conduct, reformation and likelihood of reoffending, rather than mechanically accepting adverse administrative reports.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a writ petition challenging the State Government's order rejecting the petitioner's request for remission and premature release. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving more than fourteen years of imprisonment, his case was considered under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner Rules, 1968 and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While the Jail Superintendent recommended his premature release and the concerned Presiding Judge also gave a favourable opinion, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Dandadesh Punarvilokan Board recommended rejection based on adverse opinions furnished by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, following which the State Government rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner contended that the decision ignored his satisfactory jail conduct and was contrary to the statutory scheme governing remission.
The Court noted that remission is rooted in the reformative theory of punishment and that the appropriate Government must independently evaluate all relevant considerations before taking a decision. It held that factors such as the convict's conduct during incarceration, prospects of reformation, and possibility of recidivism must be examined, and that opinions of authorities are only inputs which cannot be mechanically treated as determinative.
“… the impugned order reflects a mechanical reliance on adverse opinions without independent evaluation. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of remission, which is rooted in the reformative theory of punishment,” the Court observed.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the impugned order rested primarily on adverse reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police without any independent application of mind. It noted that there was no discussion regarding the petitioner's conduct in prison, reformation, likelihood of future criminal conduct or other relevant factors. Hence, the rejection order was cryptic, non-speaking, and suffered from non-application of mind.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had undergone the requisite period of incarceration, his case had been recommended by the Jail Superintendent, there was no adverse material regarding his conduct in prison, and nothing on record indicated that his release would pose any threat to society.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the State Government's order dated 5 January 2026 rejecting the petitioner's request for premature release, and directed the respondent authorities to grant him the benefit of premature release and release him forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Mohan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPCR No. 386 of 2026]