Patna High Court Recommends Reforms In Prison Manual, Calls For Hearing Before Remission Seizure, Safeguards For Illiterate Prisoners
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court has recommended a series of reforms to the remission framework under the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, including safeguards against arbitrary seizure of remission, fixed timelines for processing premature-release cases and measures to ensure that illiterate prisoners are not disadvantaged by educational or vocational criteria.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a suo motu writ petition registered pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated 04.11.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 529 of 2021 arising out of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021.
The Court examined, among other issues, the method of calculating ordinary remission, whether remission could be selectively granted to convicts, the criteria for special remission under Rules 428 and 429 of the Bihar Prison Manual, and whether the existing remission provisions confer excessive discretion upon the executive.
The Court made a series of recommendations for consideration by the State Government. Among other things, the Court recommended that the process of obtaining reports from various authorities for premature release of eligible prisoners should begin at least six months before the prescribed eligibility date. It further recommended fixed timelines for the Probation Officer, Superintendent of Police and Presiding Officer to submit their reports, with the report potentially being treated as favourable where it is not submitted within the prescribed period. The Court also recommended that the reports and other procedures ordinarily be completed at least two months before a life convict completes the prescribed period of custody, so that the State Sentence Remission Review Board has sufficient time to consider the case.
Significantly, the Court recommended greater procedural safeguards concerning remission already earned by a prisoner. It suggested that the prison History Ticket be maintained in duplicate, with one copy being provided to the prisoner and clear entries regarding remission granted or seized. The prisoner should also be entitled to seek rectification or prefer an appeal against the calculation. The Court further recommended:
“Before any deduction or seizure of remission already granted, the prisoner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order shall be passed. An appellate mechanism against such seizure, to be decided by a reasoned order within thirty days, may be provided.”
The Court also recommended a formal mechanism through which prisoners could complain about discrepancies in calculation or non-grant of remission.
On premature release, the Court recommended that the State Sentence Remission Review Board be expressly empowered to recommend release subject to reasonable and non-oppressive conditions, having regard to factors including the nature of the offence, age of the prisoner and reports received. It further recommended that permanent remission should not be cancelled or withdrawn without first affording the prisoner an opportunity of hearing and recording brief reasons.
The Bench also considered the effect of Rules 428 and 429, under which special remission could be granted to prisoners who rendered special assistance to the prison and correctional services department in improving educational standards or imparting vocational training. In this regard, the Court recommended that the provisions be examined to ensure that illiterate prisoners are not placed at a disadvantage, suggesting that the State consider an alternative pathway or suitable modification of the educational and vocational criteria.
The Court also recommended that remission earned during the under-trial period be appropriately counted and set off against the sentence after conviction, and that the existing provisions concerning prisoners transferred between States continue to operate according to the rules of the State where the prisoner is serving the sentence.
The Court further recommended greater transparency in the premature-release process. It suggested that details of all life convicts, including actual custody, remission earned month-wise and year-wise, case particulars, the likely date of consideration and the final order of the Remission Board, may be uploaded on a dedicated portal or the Home Department's official website for the information of prisoners and their families.
The State Government has been requested to examine the recommendations comprehensively and take appropriate policy decisions, including amendments to the Bihar Prison Manual or issuance of suitable executive instructions.
The Court also directed the State to place on record, within four weeks, an updated list of the 32 cases pending before the State Sentence Remission Board, along with the dates on which each convict completed the prescribed period of incarceration. A compliance report indicating the decisions taken on the recommendations and steps for their implementation is to be filed within four months.
The suo motu writ petition was disposed of after recording the Court's answers to the five questions framed for adjudication and the above recommendations.
Case: In view of minutes dated 17.12.2025 of Hon'ble the A.C.J. based on SLP (Crl.) No. 529/21, Bihar v. State of Bihar.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3315 of 2025
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. XXX. For the Respondents: AAG 3.