Centre's Consent For Remission Necessary Only When Sentence For Offence Under Central Act Is Continuing: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan thus held that when the period of sentence under the Central Act has been served by a convict, the approval from the Central Government is no longer necessary for granting remission by the State Government.

“The question is whether reference to Section 435 in the G.O., remains a hurdle even if the sentence for the offence relatable to Section 435, has been served, and our conclusion is in the negative, drawing support from the judgments cited supra,” the court said.

"Hence, the line of judgments referred to in the paragraphs supra and interpreting Section 435 to mean that the consent of the Centre is required only if the tenure of sentence for the offence under the Central Act is still current, has been accepted by the State. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the condition in G.O.(Ms).No.64 too, must be similarly understood. To do so otherwise would be contrary to the explicit intention of the provision, and the understanding thereof by the State, as evident from the subsequent Government Orders," it added.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Nanjil Mugilan, whose father was lodged in Chennai Central Prison and serving life sentence. The petitioner's father was sentenced for offences under Sections 148 (one year rigorous imprisonment), 341 (one month simple imprisonment), and 302 (life imprisonment five counts) of the IPC along with Section 3 (one year rigorous imprisonment) of the Explosive Substance Act.

He was convicted on October 20, 2004 and further appeal to the high court and supreme court were dismissed. On date, the petitioner's father had been incarcerated for more than 21 years. Stating that the convict had undergone substantial reformation, the petitioner had moved the authorities with a representation for premature release. The representation was however rejected citing a condition set out in a Government Order dated February 1, 2018, as per which there was a bar on conserving cases where Section 435 CrPC was attracted.

It may be noted that as per Section 435 CrPC, the State Government's power to remit or commute a sentence should be exercised after consultation with the Central Government where the offence was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, involved misappropriation or destruction or damage to any property belonging to central government, or which was committed by a person in the service of the central government.

In the present case, since petitioner's father was convicted for an offence under the central enactment, i.e., The Explosive Substances Act, the state refused remission citing the bar under the GO and involvement of Section 435 CrPC.

The petitioner argued that his father had already served the sentence in relation to the offence under Explosive Substances Act and thus there was no further need to invoke Section 435. He thus argued that the reason for rejection of remission was incorrect in law.

The state however submitted that it had, as a policy decision, decided to exclude the cases of those convicts who attract the rigour of Section 435 CrPC from the benefit of government order for remission.

The court, after considering the Supreme Court pronouncements on the matter, concluded that at the time of considering the plea for remission, the State only has to note the sentence awarded for the offence relatable to Section 435. In the present case, the court noted that since the sentence under the Central Act had long been served, the same standing in the way of considering remission would not arise.

The court thus directed the authorities to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks.

E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module

The court also took note of the 'E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module' recently launched by NALSA for timely processing of remission cases. The court directed that the module could be implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu also. As a pilot project, the court said that the project can be taken up in Puzhal Central Prison.

“The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has, in an event convened on 27.05.2026, also launched the 'E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module' and this Court seizes this opportunity to enable the implementation of the Module in the prisons in the State of Tamil Nadu as well. As a first step, the prisons at Puzhal will be taken up as a pilot project for implementation of the software,” the court said.

The court thus directed the Registrar (IT) to convene a meeting of stakeholders/authorities for proper implementation of the software and place a status report before the bench confirming the readiness of the Module for implementation in the Puzhal prison.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Radhakrishnan for Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. S. Santhosh Government Advocate

Case Title: Nanjil Mugilan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235

Case No: W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025