Supreme Court Grants Final Chance To Five States To Frame Remission Policies, Asks High Courts To Monitor Progress

Expressing displeasure over the failure to implement remission and premature release policies in the States of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the respective High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition to monitor and ensure effective enforcement of these policies in their jurisdictions.

The Court advised the State governments to initiate the premature release process of the eligible convict “at least six months prior to the eligibility of a convict so that unwanted time by way of incarceration even after a convict becomes eligible for premature release can very well be avoided.”

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of applications in a suo moto writ petition concerning bail policies and related issues. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by the state governments in establishing clear and fair remission policies in compliance with the Court's earlier directives.

During the proceedings, the court's attention was drawn to the non-compliance of five specific states. The bench noted, "Learned Amicus, by placing reliance upon the chart, has submitted that five of the States namely Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal are yet to adopt and implement the draft policy and rules including adequate amendments to give effect to the earlier directions issued by this Court.", adding that an additional two months' time is granted to these States to ensure full and complete compliance upon request made by the respective State Counsels.

Accepting a suggestion from Amicus Curiae Ms. Liz Mathew to delegate the supervisory role to the respective High Courts, the Court ordered, "We request the Hon'ble Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to register a suo moto writ petition and thereafter, a Division Bench shall be constituted to monitor and supervise the implementation of the remission and premature release policies of the respective States."

The High Courts have been directed to file affidavits updating the Supreme Court on the progress by the next date of hearing.

Background

On February 18, 2025, the Court issued significant directions regarding the exercise of the government's power to grant remission and premature release of convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih clarified that the power to grant remission is not contingent upon a convict filing an application. Once a convict becomes eligible under a State's remission policy, the government is obligated to suo motu consider their case for release. The Court held that failure to do so would amount to arbitrariness and discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court also directed all States and Union Territories lacking a comprehensive remission policy to frame one within two months, either as a separate document or incorporated within prison manuals to avoid arbitrariness and discrimination in decision making process. Emphasizing fairness, the Court ruled that remission orders whether granting or rejecting release, must record brief reasons and be communicated to the convict.

The following directions were issued by the Court:

a) Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission. When the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate Government contains such policy guidelines, the aforesaid direction will apply;

b) We direct those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months from today;

c) Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission. Consideration of various factors, which are mentioned in the paragraph 13 above by way of illustration, is necessary before finalizing the conditions. The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates himself in the society. The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission. The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed;

d) Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison. The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities. It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.

e) As held in the case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar, an order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons;

f) The District Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to implement NALSA SOP in its true letter and spirit.

g) Further, the District Legal Services Authorities shall also monitor implementation of conclusion (a) as recorded above. For this purpose, the District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful in terms of conclusion (a). The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.

Cause Title: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail

Click here to download

Also From Case: Supreme Court Directs States To Consider Premature Release Of Convicts When They Become Eligible Even Without Their Applications

Supreme Court Directs States, UTs To Comply With Directions On Remission Policy And Procedures Withing Two Months