This appeal concerns the legality of conditions imposed while granting remission to the appellant, who was serving life imprisonment for offenses under Section 302 read with Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC. The Supreme Court held that vague and arbitrary conditions imposed during remission violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and should be struck down.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 432, CrPC - Power of remission by the State Government.
2. Sections 302, 147, and 148, IPC - Murder and rioting with deadly weapons.
3. Article 14 and 21, Constitution of India - Right to equality and personal liberty.

Crux and Ratio:

The Supreme Court focused on two conditions of remission imposed by the Gujarat Government:

1. Condition 1: The appellant must behave "decently" for two years, and provide sureties ensuring he would not breach societal peace or threaten witnesses.

   • Ratio: The Court held that the term “decently” was vague and subjective, and it violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) as it provided unfettered discretion to the authorities, making it arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Condition 2: If the appellant committed any cognizable offense or inflicted serious injury after release, he would automatically return to prison to serve the remaining sentence.

   • Ratio: The Court clarified that such a condition could not result in automatic cancellation of remission without following principles of natural justice, including a fair hearing.

The judgment affirmed that the power to impose conditions on remission must be reasonable, fair, and not arbitrary. The Court struck down the first condition and provided guidelines on how to handle the second condition, ensuring due process is followed.

1. Introduction (Paras 1-2):

• Facts: The appellant was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. After years of incarceration, remission was granted by the Gujarat Government, but with several conditions.
• Legal Issue: Whether the conditions imposed were arbitrary and violated the appellant's constitutional rights.

2. Factual Background (Paras 3-5):

• Facts: The appellant's parole application was rejected, and while this appeal was being heard, a separate application for remission was granted with four conditions. The appellant challenged conditions 1 and 2.
• Legal Point: The appellant accepted remission but objected to the specific conditions, particularly on their vagueness and potential arbitrary application.

3. Arguments by the Appellant (Paras 6-7):

• Submissions: Condition 1 was vague, and Condition 2 could lead to the automatic revocation of remission without due process, violating Articles 14 and 21.

4. Arguments by the State (Paras 8-9):

• Submissions: The State argued that the conditions were within the State's discretionary power under Section 432(1) CrPC and supported by public interest considerations.

5. Legal Framework (Paras 9-10):

• Sections Discussed: The Court analyzed Section 432 CrPC and explained the legal basis for the Government's power to impose conditions on remission.

6. Court's Findings on Condition 1 (Paras 13-14):

• Finding: The term "decently" was found to be too vague, giving undue power to the State to revoke remission arbitrarily, violating Article 14.

7. Court’s Findings on Condition 2 (Paras 15-16):

• Finding: The Court clarified that revocation of remission cannot be automatic upon the mere registration of a cognizable offense. Natural justice must be followed, including a show-cause notice and the right to a hearing before revocation.

8. Conclusion (Paras 17-18):

• Held: The first condition was struck down, and the second condition was allowed with modifications, ensuring procedural safeguards.

Subjects:

Remission, Life Imprisonment, Section 432 CrPC, Natural Justice, Article 14, Article 21, Constitutional Law, Prisoner's Rights