1993 Mumbai Serial Blasts Case: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release
Amisha Shrivastava
27 July 2026 12:57 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday reserved orders on a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, seeking premature release after briefly hearing arguments on whether his earned prison remission and undertrial custody should be counted towards the 25-year imprisonment cap flowing from India's extradition assurances to Portugal.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta orally asked Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Salem, whether he wanted "a detailed judgment or dismissal simpliciter." The Court, however, reserved its order and permitted the parties to file written submissions and supporting judgments within a week.
Malhotra submitted that despite the TADA Court's categorical direction granting him the benefit of set-off for the period spent as an undertrial, the jail authorities had failed to extend that benefit.
Justice Mehta at the outset asked, "What is the mathematical calculation of the actual period of custody?"
In response, Malhotra argued that apart from the undertrial set-off, Salem was also entitled to have his earned remission for good conduct counted as part of his actual imprisonment. Distinguishing it from remission under Section 432 CrPC, he submitted,
"There is a constitutional judgement that the jail earned remission has to be counted in actual period. Remission is of two types. One is under Section 432 CrPC, which I am not even claiming. The second is on my jail good conduct. This Court has held that it has to be counted in actual imprisonment."
He further argued that when the undertrial set-off is read together with the assurance given by the Government of India to Portugal that Salem would not remain imprisoned for more than 25 years, he had already completed more than the stipulated period.
"Today I have already surpass 25 years that is 26 years, 9 months and 22 days," he said.
Malhotra submitted that the Supreme Court had previously held that powers under Section 432 CrPC could be exercised one month before completion of the 25-year period. However, he clarified that Salem was not seeking statutory remission under Section 432, but only the benefit of earned remission, which, according to him, judicial precedents treat as part of actual imprisonment.
Referring to Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar vs State Of Karnataka, Malhotra argued that earned remission granted on account of monthly, quarterly or yearly good conduct, or for performing assigned duties, forms part of actual imprisonment.
He further submitted that Salem had already earned approximately three years and two months of remission for good conduct and that other convicts had been released after taking such remission into account. According to him, the Bombay High Court had wrongly distinguished Salem's case by holding that the 25-year period under the extradition assurance was not a fixed-term sentence and, therefore, could not be reduced by earned remission.
At this stage, Justice Nath asked Malhotra, "Do you want a detailed judgment or dismissal simpliciter?"
Malhotra responded, "A detailed judgment. Let me put across my point."
Justice Nath however replied, "We have heard you. Put it in your written submissions."
Malhotra then urged the Court to at least issue notice or grant the benefit of undertrial set-off as directed by the TADA Court.
The Court ultimately reserved its order and directed the parties to file written submissions along with supporting judgments within one week.
In April 2025, the Bombay High Court rejected Abu Salem's plea seeking premature release.
Before the HC, Salem had contended that, after taking into account the remissions earned by him in prison, he had completed 25 years of imprisonment and was therefore entitled to be released under the assurances given by India to Portugal at the time of his extradition. The High Court held that the 25-year period contemplated by the Supreme Court had not yet concluded and would expire only in November 2030. The Court held that Salem's plea, which sought inclusion of earned remissions while computing the 25-year period, was premature and misconceived.
The High Court noted that India had assured Portugal on December 17, 2002, that Salem would neither be awarded the death penalty nor remain imprisoned for more than 25 years if extradited to India. Relying on these assurances and the Supreme Court's July 2022 judgment, in which the apex court too relied on the treaty with Portugal and held that in line with the said treaty, Salem will have to be released on him completing 25 years in jail, he argued that he was entitled to release after completing 25 years in custody.
Salem claimed that he had spent about 11 years, 9 months and 26 days in custody as an undertrial between November 2005 and September 2017, and another 9 years, 10 months and 4 days as a convict. He further claimed remission of three years and sixteen days for good conduct in the 2006 case and an additional one month's relaxation granted by the Supreme Court for the period spent as an undertrial prisoner in Portugal. According to him, these periods together amounted to nearly 25 years of imprisonment. He contended that continuing his incarceration violated Article 21 of the Constitution and sought directions to the authorities to specify his exact date of release.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that earned remissions could not be used to reduce the 25-year ceiling flowing from the extradition arrangement. It observed that the 25-year cap itself operated as a substantial remission of a life sentence necessitated by India's international obligations. The Court opined that permitting ordinary prison remissions to further reduce that period would defeat the Supreme Court's directions and the very basis of the sentence structure arising from the extradition treaty. It also found no indication in the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment that earned remissions under prison rules were intended to shorten the 25-year period.
The High Court held that Salem was first arrested on November 11, 2005 and that a simple computation from that date showed that the 25-year period would expire only in November 2030. It further clarified that neither the remissions under Rule 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 nor remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked to reduce the fixed 25-year threshold.
Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026 Diary No. 41145 / 2026 ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
