Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of India
IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The power of the Government to grant remission under Sections 432 of the CrPC and 473 of the BNSS, including conditions for remission, revocation, and recording reasons.
Supreme Court of India·18 February 2025
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
18 February 2025
Judges
Justices Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Augustine George Masih
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Facts of the Case
- The Supreme Court examined the power of the Government to grant remission to convicts under Section 432 CrPC and Section 473 BNSS.
- The Court addressed concerns related to:
- Whether remission can be granted without a convict’s application.
- The fairness and reasonableness of conditions attached to remission.
- The process and grounds for revocation of remission.
- The requirement to record reasons when granting or rejecting remission.
Issues
- Whether the appropriate Government can grant remission without the convict or anyone on their behalf applying?
- Whether the conditions imposed on remission should be reasonable and capable of being complied with?
- Whether the remission can be revoked automatically on breach of conditions, and should the convict be given a chance to explain?
- Whether there is a requirement for the Government to record reasons when granting or rejecting remission?
Judgement
- The Court held that remission can be granted without the convict or their representative applying, especially if the State has adopted a policy for permanent remission.
- The conditions imposed must be reasonable, non-vague, and capable of being complied with, ensuring rehabilitation of the convict and considering the nature of the crime.
- The Court confirmed that remission can only be revoked if there is a breach of conditions. The convict must be given a show-cause notice and the opportunity to reply before revocation.
- The Court ruled that reasons for granting or denying remission must be recorded as it affects the convict’s liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The Court directed that all States and Union Territories without a remission policy should formulate one within two months and issued specific guidelines on remission, including reasons, conditions, and revocation.
Held
- The Court emphasized that remission is a matter that directly impacts a convict’s liberty, and the power must be exercised in a fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary manner as per Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Section 432 CrPC and Section 473 BNSS must be interpreted to include requirements of fairness, such as providing a show-cause notice before revocation and recording reasons when granting or refusing remission.
- The Court’s ruling ensures that the State’s power of remission is not discriminatory or arbitrary, and it ensures that convicts are given a fair opportunity to be heard.
Analysis
- The Court reinforced the principle that administrative powers must be exercised with transparency, fairness, and consideration for the individual’s rights.
- The judgment sets a clear precedent for how remission policies should be structured and how they must be applied across the country.
- This ruling will affect how States and Union Territories formulate and apply policies regarding remission, potentially reducing arbitrariness in the exercise of these powers.
- Future cases involving remission will likely rely on this decision to challenge unjust denial or revocation of remission, particularly with the requirement for recording reasons and providing a fair hearing.
- It remains to be seen how States will implement the two-month deadline for the policy formulation, and whether delays might lead to further litigation.
- There may be challenges around the reasonableness of conditions imposed and whether they truly balance the needs of rehabilitation and public safety.
- The case strengthens the rights of convicts under Article 21, particularly in relation to remission and revocation.
- It requires governments to adopt transparent and comprehensive remission policies, and it ensures that the reasons for granting or refusing remission are made clear, promoting fairness and accountability in the process.
- Legal practitioners must now consider the impact of this judgment when advising on cases involving premature release or remission, particularly in terms of the requirements for due process and reasoned decisions.