Supreme Court Warns Gujarat Govt Of Contempt Proceedings Over Delay In Deciding Remission Pleas

The Supreme Court recently warned the State of Gujarat of strict penal consequences, including possible suo motu contempt proceedings, for failing to decide applications for premature release of convicts within the timelines prescribed under its policy.

“It is further clarified that in future, if the above stipulation as per the policy itself is not implemented in its entirety and mandatorily, the same shall entail strict penal orders from this Court, including, but not limited to, initiation of suo motu contempt against all the persons who do not act in terms of the policy or if the final order does not come latest by the day on which the convict completes 14 years of actual incarceration”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was dealing with the case of a life convict whose premature release had not been decided despite completion of the required period of incarceration under the State policy.

The Court noted that as on December 12, 2025, the petitioner had already completed the minimum period required for consideration under the premature release policy. Despite this, and despite more than three months' time granted on that date, no final decision had been taken.

On March 16, 2026, the State informed the Court that the competent committee meets only four times a year and that the petitioner's case was under process and would be placed before it.

The Court found this stand “absolutely unacceptable”.

Referring to the State's circular dated July 9, 1992 issued under Section 432 of the CrPC, the Court noted that the process for premature release must begin three months before completion of 14 years of imprisonment so that a final decision is taken when the convict becomes eligible.

The Court held that once a prisoner completes the prescribed period, a final order must be passed on that very day, since the policy itself requires advance processing.

It observed that although premature release is not a fundamental right, it is a vested right once the State frames a policy. In matters concerning life and liberty, continued incarceration beyond the legally prescribed period would amount to illegal custody.

“We need not reiterate the fact that the right for premature release is not a fundamental right, but it does take the nature of a vested right in a prisoner, once the State Government exercises its discretion and frames a policy. However, in matters which relate to life and liberty of a person, the Constitutional Principles have to be invoked, for the reason that every day beyond the period which in law has been prescribed, and in the present case, a statutory law relating to the period of incarceration, the person would be considered to be in illegal custody and rightly so, the Government had directed that the process be started three months before the date on which the prisoner would be completing the 14 years of actual incarceration”, the Court observed.

The Court stated that it could have initiated proceedings against all responsible officials but refrained from doing so at this stage.

The Court listed the matter on April 7, 2026 directing that the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of Gujarat for compliance across the State.

The Court also warned that if a final decision is not placed on record by the next date, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary or Secretary of the Home Department, and the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat, shall remain personally present to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them.

The Gujarat High Court in 2023 had upheld the petitioner's conviction under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.

The conviction relates to a December 9, 2011 incident in Ahmedabad where the accused was found to have assaulted his wife with a hammer, causing fatal head injuries. At the time of the High Court judgment, the appellant had already undergone sentence of over 11 years.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged delays by state authorities in deciding remission and premature release.

In March 2025, the Court issued a contempt notice to the Delhi Home Secretary for not deciding a remission case despite earlier assurances, observing that authorities act only when faced with contempt.

In February 2025, the Court directed States to consider premature release of convicts as soon as they become eligible, even without requiring a formal application, stressing that eligible prisoners should not remain in custody due to administrative delay.

In November 2025, the Court expressed displeasure over failure of several States to implement remission and premature release policies and directed High Courts to monitor compliance through suo motu proceedings.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 855 / 2026

Case Title – Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid v. State of Gujarat