The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday directed all states and Union territories to streamline the remission process for life convicts. The court ordered that each prison must provide a copy of the remission policy to convicts, while also ensuring that these policies are uploaded on the respective government websites. Additionally, it emphasized the importance of promptly informing convicts if their remission requests are denied so they can appeal.
Supreme Court Bench’s Directives
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Abhay S Oka and also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih, passed the order while hearing a suo motu petition that addresses the release of prisoners on bail or remission to ease prison overcrowding. The court’s directives were issued following a review of responses from various states regarding their remission policies.
Discrepancies in State Remission Policies
The court noted discrepancies in how some states were handling remission policies. For example, the remission policy uploaded on Kerala’s state website was only available in Malayalam, creating accessibility issues for non-Malayalam speakers. Meanwhile, Andhra Pradesh proposed changes to its remission policy, but these updates were not made available in the public domain. The bench also highlighted that an earlier Supreme Court order from July 2021 required that reasoned orders be issued when denying premature release to life convicts, a condition that wasn’t always being followed.
Common Directives to All States and Union Territories
In light of these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court issued a set of common instructions for all states and Union territories:
- Every prison must provide a copy of the state’s existing or modified remission policy for the benefit of convicts.
- Each state must upload an English translation of its remission policy on the official state website.
- States must ensure that convicts are informed of any remission rejection within one week of the order being passed.
- If a remission request is denied without reasons being cited, the convict should receive the rationale from the Sentence Review Board, which is responsible for reviewing remission applications in each district.
Legal Aid for Convicts Denied Remission
To further support convicts whose remission applications are denied, the court mandated that district legal services authorities provide legal aid to those unable to file an appeal on their own. The court also warned states against rejecting remission applications based on “stereotype conditions,” stating that each case must be reviewed on its specific merits.
“We make it clear that the state shall ensure rejection orders are communicated to the convicts within 1 week of the passing of the order. If the rejection order does not contain reasons, the reason cited by the Sentence Review Board in each district shall be forwarded to the convicts,” the bench instructed.
Amicus Curiae’s Report Highlights Delays in Remission Processing
Senior advocate Liz Mathew, serving as amicus curiae in the case, presented the court with reports from different states. These reports revealed that remission cases for numerous convicts had been stalled, often due to pending appeals in the high courts or the Supreme Court. In some instances, the state had even appealed for death sentences, further delaying the remission process.
“Some states are not processing applications for remission on the ground that appeals against conviction are pending. This is no ground not to consider the applications,” the bench noted, highlighting the unjustified delays in processing remission applications.
Clarification on Automatic Remission Consideration
The court asked for further clarification on whether states are obligated to automatically consider remission for life convicts who have served more than 14 years, even if no formal application has been submitted by the convict. The bench scheduled further hearings on this matter for December 3, requesting suggestions from the amicus curiae and other lawyers representing the states on this issue.
