Potential To Commit Further Crime Can't Be Inferred From Convict's Age, Physical Fitness Alone While Deciding Remission: Meghalaya High Court
The Meghalaya High Court has held that a convict's age and physical fitness alone cannot form the basis for inferring that he is likely to commit crimes in future while deciding his claim for remission. Holding that such an assessment must instead be based on the convict's antecedents and conduct during incarceration, the Court set aside the Sentence Review Committee's decision rejecting a...
The Meghalaya High Court has held that a convict's age and physical fitness alone cannot form the basis for inferring that he is likely to commit crimes in future while deciding his claim for remission.
Holding that such an assessment must instead be based on the convict's antecedents and conduct during incarceration, the Court set aside the Sentence Review Committee's decision rejecting a life convict's application for premature release and directed a fresh consideration.
Justice B. Bhattacharjee found that the Sentence Review Committee had primarily relied on the petitioner's age (40 years) and physical fitness to conclude that his "potential to commit further crime in future cannot be ruled out".
Observing that the Committee had offered no justification for ignoring the Superintendent's recommendation, the Court said:
"It is clear from the impugned decision dated 04.02.2026 that the recommendation of the Superintendent of District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong was taken note of by the Sentence Review Committee. The contents of the recommendation of the Superintendent... with regard to conduct, maturity and interest of the petitioner during the period of incarceration was favourable to the petitioner. However, the Sentence Review Committee has not assigned any reason or justification for not acting on the basis of recommendation of the Superintendent... The impugned decision, as such, is not tenable in the eye of law."
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 and 364A of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. By the time his remission application was considered by the Sentence Review Committee, he had undergone 19 years, 7 months and 18 days of imprisonment.
The petitioner challenged the Committee's order dated February 4, 2026 rejecting his request for premature release.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary as it was contrary to the State's Remission Policy and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the Committee mechanically rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was 40 years old, physically fit, and that his potential to commit further crimes could not be ruled out. It was further argued that the favourable recommendation of the Superintendent of the District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong was ignored without assigning any reasons.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Advocate General contended that the rejection was based not merely on the petitioner's age but also on the heinous nature of the offence involving the kidnapping and murder of a nine-year-old boy for ransom. It was submitted that the Committee had acted in accordance with the State's Remission Policy, 2026 by taking into account the nature of the crime and its impact on society. The State also argued that remission is not a matter of right and the power to grant it is discretionary.
After examining the impugned decision, the Court found that the Committee had primarily relied upon the petitioner's age and physical fitness while concluding that his potential to commit further crimes could not be ruled out. At the same time, although the Committee acknowledged the heinous nature of the offence, it failed to explain why it had disregarded the favourable assessment made by the Prison Superintendent regarding the petitioner's good conduct, maturity and efforts to maintain peace and harmony during incarceration.
The Court reiterated that although a convict cannot claim remission as a matter of right, the State's discretion must be exercised fairly and in accordance with law. It referred to Satish @ Sabbe V. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) where the Supreme Court held that Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Sentence Review Committee's decision and remitted the matter to the Committee for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for premature release in light of the State's Remission Policy and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Committee has been directed to take a fresh decision within 30 days from receipt of the order.
Case Title: Shri Suraj Gupta v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026