Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2026
The Supreme Court emphasized the need to check statutory limitations and prison rules before granting treaty-based remission claims.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
13 January 2026
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Abu Salem was extradited from Portugal in 2005 to face trial in India for the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, which killed 257 people.
-
Convicted by a Special TADA Court in 2017 and sentenced to life imprisonment under TADA and multiple IPC provisions.
-
India assured Portugal (via Extradition Treaty, Dec 17, 2002) that Salem would not face death penalty and would serve maximum 25 years imprisonment.
-
Salem claims jail-earned remission of 3 years 16 days, arguing that he has completed 25 years and is eligible for pre-mature release.
-
Maharashtra government contends that Salem has only completed 19 years 5 months 18 days as of March 31, 2025.
-
Salem approached Bombay High Court for pre-mature release, which refused interim relief.
-
Supreme Court sought Salem to produce Maharashtra State Prison Rules to ascertain if remission applies to TADA convicts.
-
Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra argued for counting jail-earned remission towards actual sentence.
-
Justice Mehta questioned applicability, stating exceptions exist under rules for no remission for TADA convicts.
Issues
-
Whether a TADA convict is entitled to jail-earned remission under the Maharashtra State Prison Rules?
-
Whether the Extradition Treaty between India and Portugal obliges Indian authorities to release Abu Salem after completing 25 years imprisonment, including remission?
-
Whether counting jail-earned remission towards the actual sentence is permissible under Indian law for a terrorism-related conviction?
-
Whether refusal to grant pre-mature release in accordance with the treaty violates Article 21 of the Constitution?
Judgement
-
Supreme Court asked Salem to produce Maharashtra State Prison Rules regarding remission for TADA convicts.
-
Court clarified that mere completion of jail-earned remission does not automatically entitle him to pre-mature release; applicability depends on State Rules.
-
Court noted that exceptions under rules may provide no remission for terrorism-related offences.
-
Court emphasized the need to verify actual sentence completed including remission, and adjourned the matter for further submissions.
-
Highlighted importance of balancing treaty obligations with domestic law limitations.
Held
-
Abu Salem must provide relevant prison rules to ascertain if remission applies to TADA convicts.
-
Supreme Court did not grant pre-mature release but kept matter pending for clarification of remission rules.
-
Extradition Treaty assurances are subject to domestic statutory provisions, including prison rules for remission.
Analysis
-
Supreme Court emphasized the need to check statutory limitations and prison rules before granting treaty-based remission claims.
-
Domestic law governs remission of sentence.
-
TADA convictions may have specific exceptions limiting remission.
-
Treaty obligations cannot override statutory provisions unless explicitly provided.
-
Clarifies that pre-mature release claims under extradition treaties must comply with domestic prison rules.
-
Reinforces limitations on remission for terrorism-related convictions.
-
Sets procedural precedent for requiring convicts to submit applicable rules to determine entitlement.