Remission Shouldn't Be Denied Solely On Reports Of Presiding Judge Or Police : Supreme Court Lays Down Factors For Premature Release

The Supreme Court recently pronounced a notable judgment explaining the factors which a Government should take into account while deciding to grant remission of sentence to convicts as per Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Apart from other considerations (such as the nature of the crime, whether it affected the society at large, the chance of its recurrence etc), the government, while considering the potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future, should also consider whether there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration.The government should also take into account factors such as age, health, familial relationships, reintegration possibilities, extent of earned remission, and post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being.The Court suggested that the government could also benefit from a report prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting with the convict. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the individual's post-conviction development, rehabilitation efforts, and potential for reintegration into society.Presiding Judge's opinion should not be the sole considerationThe Court also emphasized that a holistic approach, considering various inputs beyond the Presiding Judge's opinion under Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mechanical reliance on the Presiding Judge's report could undermine the core objective of remission.The Court observed that “overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable. The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view – which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record – is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission – as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation – in a modern legal system.”The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking premature release since he has been in custody for 24 years without grant of remission or parole. The case in question pertains to the rejection of a petitioner's application for premature release by the Remission Board on both occasions because of the adverse opinion of the Presiding Judge.The Court raised concerns over the weight given to the Presiding Judge's opinion in the rejection of the petitioner's application. It was observed that the adverse reports submitted by the Presiding Judge during both rounds of application were primarily based on judicial records, focusing solely on the conviction handed down by the trial court and the subsequent affirmation by the High Court. This approach, the Court noted, offers only a limited and outdated perspective on the petitioner's rehabilitation and progress during his term of imprisonment."Such a report, cannot be relied on as carrying predominance, if it focusses on the crime, with little or no attention to the criminal", the judgment authored by Justice BhatIn contrast, authorities such as Probation Officers and Jail authorities, who are more closely involved in the prisoner's day-to-day life, are in a better position to evaluate the convict's post-conviction transformation and potential for reintegration into society.The Court elucidated that while the Presiding Judge's opinion is a significant input, it must be in compliance with statutory requirements and include a thorough evaluation of relevant factors as laid down in Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B(2000).The Court's pronouncement came in light of the recent case of Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 which observed “However, this is not to say that the appropriate Government should mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge. If the opinion of the Presiding Judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432(2) or if the Judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000, )the Government may request the Presiding Judge to consider the matter afresh.”The Court highlighted the disparity between post-conviction conduct and the nature of the crime, which the Presiding Judge's opinion primarily relies upon, emphasizing the need for a more holistic evaluation.The Court opined “The views of the presiding judge, are based on the record, which exists,...

Remission Shouldn't Be Denied Solely On Reports Of Presiding Judge Or Police : Supreme Court Lays Down Factors For Premature Release

Suraj Parmar

Tags