Judicial Examination of Remission Powers – Interpretation of Section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 473, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Requirement of Application, Conditions, and Revocation – Role of Prison Manuals and Legal Services Authorities

Held that remission must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner, ensuring compliance with policy guidelines. (Para 10) Directed states without remission policies to frame them within two months. (Para 21b) Recognized that appropriate government is obligated to consider all eligible cases, even without applications. (Para 6-8) Mandated recording of reasons for granting or refusing remission, ensuring communication to convicts and legal aid authorities. (Para 17-18)Stated that revocation of remission requires due process, including a show cause notice and opportunity for hearing. (Para 14-16) Emphasized role of Legal Services Authorities in monitoring premature release cases and aiding convicts. (Para 19-21g)

Major Acts Discussed

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 72, Article 161 – Pardoning power of President and Governor remains unaffected by statutory remission provisions.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 432, Section 433-A – Remission and commutation of sentences, restrictions on life imprisonment remission.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 473, Section 475 – Corresponding provisions for remission and restriction on life imprisonment remission.

Keywords:

Remission – Commutation – Appropriate Government – Policy Framework – Jail Manual – Legal Services Authority – Due Process – Natural Justice – Conditional Release – Cancellation – Rehabilitation – Public Safety – Right to Liberty

Issues:

a) Whether remission can be granted without an application from the convict or on his behalf.
b) Whether conditions imposed in remission orders must meet the test of reasonableness.
c) Whether automatic revocation of remission is permissible upon breach of conditions.
d) Whether reasons must be recorded while granting or rejecting remission applications.

Submissions and Arguments:

• Amicus Curiae: Argued that remission should not be arbitrary and must be governed by transparent policies.
• State Governments: Contended that remission is a discretionary executive power, subject to guidelines in jail manuals.
• Petitioner: Challenged discriminatory application of remission policies and lack of uniform criteria across states.