Conditions For Remission Must Be Reasonable; No Automatic Cancellation Of Remission On Breach Without Prior Notice: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 21) held that while the State has the discretion to impose conditions on a convict while granting permanent remission, such conditions must be reasonable.

The Court held, "The power under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions imposed while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 must be reasonable. The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may also violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that principles of natural justice must be followed before cancellation of remission due to breach of conditions.

Justice Abhay Oka further pronounced, “We have also held that before remission is cancelled on the ground of breach of terms and conditions, principles of natural justice have to be followed.”

"The allegations of breach of condition cannot be taken at their face value, and whether a case for cancellation of remission is made out will have to be decided in the facts of each case. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission. The appropriate Government will have to consider the nature of the breach alleged against the convict. A minor or a trifling breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission. There must be some material to substantiate the allegations of breach. Depending upon the seriousness and gravity thereof, action can be taken under subsection (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS of cancellation of the order remitting sentence", the Court held.

The Court passed this judgment in plea filed by a life convict challenging the conditions imposed by the Gujarat government while granting him permanent remission.

Among these conditions was a requirement that the convict must behave “decently” for two years post-release, which the Court struck down. The Court had earlier questioned the validity of this condition during oral arguments, observing that it was “vague” and lacked a clear definition.

The Court today observed that the term "decent behavior" was vague and undefined in both the CrPC and cognate legislations, making its interpretation subjective. This vagueness could lead to arbitrary revocation of remission by the executive. Consequently, the Court found that such a condition violated Article 14 of the Constitution due to its arbitrariness and struck it down.

"Putting such a vague condition while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC will give a tool in the hands of the executive to cancel the remission at its whims and fancies. Therefore, such a condition is arbitrary and will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The Court also addressed another condition imposed by the Gujarat government, which provided that the convict would be rearrested and required to serve the remaining sentence if he commits any cognizable offence after release. The Court today explained that remission will not be automatically cancelled on the ground of breach of this condition.

The mere registration of a cognizable offence would not automatically result in cancellation of remission, the Court held. The Court added that State must follow natural justice principles, issuing a show-cause notice and providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond.

"The show cause notice must contain the grounds on which action under sub section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS is proposed to be taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating brief reasons. The principles of natural justice must be read into subsection (3) of Section 432 and subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS. The convict whose remission has been cancelled can always adopt a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Court held.

Background

The case pertains to a convict who had initially filed an SLP challenging the State of Gujarat's delay in deciding his remission plea. On September 15, 2023, the Gujarat government granted the convict permanent remission, imposing conditions including:

1. The convict must behave “decently” for two years and submit two sureties from respectable individuals.

2. If the convict committed any cognizable offence after release, he would be rearrested and required to serve the remaining sentence.

3. The convict was required to report to the nearest police station once a month for a year after release.

Thereafter, the petitioner amended the petition to challenge the conditions. During the oral arguments of the parties, Justice Oka had repeatedly raised concerns about the conditions. He stated that while Section 432(1) of the CrPC allows the State to impose conditions for remission, such conditions must be reasonable and there must be a clear rationale for their imposition.

He questioned the enforceability of the "decent behavior" condition, calling it meaningless and highlighting the difficulty of ensuring compliance with a vague condition.

The Court had also expressed concern over the automatic cancellation of remission based on the registration of an FIR, without a conviction.

The counsel for Gujarat had defended the conditions, arguing that they were necessary to prevent the convict from reoffending.

However, Justice Oka had pointed out that while the State has the power to impose conditions under Section 432, these conditions must be reasonable as the State has all pervasive power under section 432(3) to revoke remission. “Only on subjective satisfaction of police officer that the person is not behaving decently sub-section (3) can be invoked. There lies the danger. Same with second condition”, he had added.

“We understand if you say after the grant of permanent remission, he is convicted of a cognizable offence. If your interpretation of clause 2 is that the registration of an FIR for alleging a cognizable offence means remission can be cancelled... How many cases do we come across of false FIRs?” Justice Oka had questioned during the hearing.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6166/2023

Case Title – Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment