Supreme Court Directs All States, UTs To Promptly Convey Rejection Of Remission Plea To Convicts

The Supreme Court recently directed all states and union territories to inform convicts of any rejection of applications for permanent remission within one week and forward copies of these rejection orders to the respective District Legal Services Authorities to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to provide legal aid to affected convicts.

“(iii) All the States shall ensure that orders of rejection of applications for grant of permanent remission are communicated to the concerned convicts. The orders of rejection shall also be forwarded to the concerned District Legal Services Authorities to enable them to take appropriate steps for rendering legal aid to the concerned convicts;

(iv) We make it clear that the States shall ensure that the rejection orders are communicated in terms of the above directions within a period of one week from the date of passing of the rejection orders”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih passed several directions to all state governments and union territories regarding compliance with remission policies for prisoners –

1. States must make copies of their remission policies available in all prisons and upload them, along with English translations, to government websites. Jail authorities are responsible for informing eligible prisoners about these policies.
2. Any updates or modifications to remission policies must also be made accessible in prisons and uploaded to the relevant websites promptly.
3. Rejection orders for remission applications must be communicated to prisoners within one week of issuance. Copies of these orders should also be sent to the District Legal Services Authorities to facilitate legal aid.
4. If rejection orders lack detailed reasons, states are directed to provide reasons recorded by the Sentence Review Board or equivalent authorities along with the orders.
5. The Court clarified that states should not delay remission applications due to pending appeals by prisoners. However, applications may be paused if the state has appealed for enhanced sentencing or acquittal.
6. States are to follow the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, ensuring that conditions for remission are tailored to each case rather than imposing stereotypical conditions.

The Court also said that it will consider whether states must provide reasons for rejection of remission, review eligibility without convict applications, and set further general directions.

“For considering the issues which are flagged earlier, namely (i) requirement of recording reasons for rejection of the applications for grant of permanent remission; (ii) whether the State Governments are bound to consider the applications of the eligible convicts for grant of permanent remission in terms of their policies, even if the convicts make no such application; (iii) whether any further directions applicable to all the States are required to be issued; and (iv) the conditions which can be imposed while granting permanent remission. The aforesaid four aspects shall be considered on 3rd December, 2024.”

The Court has earlier passed directions to avoid delay in the release of prisoners who have secured bail orders and that the bail conditions imposed by the Courts must be reasonable.

The Court also examined compliance by various states to its directions regarding the implementation of its directions for the premature release of life convicts. The Court's directions cover the entire process, from identifying eligible life convicts to finalizing release orders by state governments.

Tamil Nadu

The court observed that the State of Tamil Nadu has not reviewed the majority of cases for eligible convicts, failing to meet deadlines set in the court's July 2021 order. A note from Amicus Curiae Liz Mathew highlighted issues, including the lack of clear reasoning in rejected cases for remission. The court directed Tamil Nadu to decide on all pending cases within two months, ensure DLSAs provide legal aid to prisoners whose remission applications were denied, and immediately communicate orders of rejection to affected convicts.

District Collectors, Probation Officers, and other relevant officials should adhere to timelines established in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), submitting reports within the next month, the Court held.

Manipur

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for Manipur to reconstitute its Medical Board with psychiatrists and psychologists to review the mental health status of five prisoners allegedly of unsound mind who are eligible for remission. The State Government was directed to complete this exercise within a month and submit its report directly to the Amicus Curiae. The court also ordered the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide required information to Manipur by mid-November to ensure compliance with past orders. Further, the Manipur State Legal Services Authority must direct DLSAs to contact the families of the five prisoners for cooperation.

West Bengal

The Supreme Court granted West Bengal an extension to submit its compliance report, now due by December 3, 2024.

Assam

The court directed the Assam Government to clear backlogged remission applications by the end of December. Orders for rejected cases must be communicated to affected prisoners with assistance from the Assam Legal Services Authority, which must ensure that prisoners can seek legal help.

Arunachal Pradesh

The court directed Arunachal Pradesh to notify a convict of the rejection of his remission application.

Kerala

Mathew proposed several directions for Kerala, which the Court granted:

1. State of Kerala must decide pending applications within two months.
2. It should make remission policies accessible on its website in both English and the regional language.
3. The state must confirm whether reasoned orders were issued for rejected candidates, including those not recommended by the Advisory Board, and make these orders available to affected prisoners.
4. NALSA is to ensure Kerala prisoners have access to report grievances and legal aid.
5. The Kerala Legal Services Authority should monitor adherence to NALSA's SOP.

Himachal Pradesh

1. The State must obtain legal opinions on all pending cases from convicting courts within one month.
2. Officials, including the District Authority and Welfare Department, must expedite the collection of required documents and finalize orders on applications within two months.
3. The Himachal Pradesh Legal Services Authority is to ensure officials adhere to NALSA timelines.
4. NALSA will facilitate grievance reporting and legal support for eligible prisoners facing delays or rejections.

Andhra Pradesh

The court directed state of Andhra Pradesh to finalize its revised remission policy within a month and decide on pending cases within two months.

Odisha

The state must clear applications pending due to document requirements and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Uttarakhand

The Court granted state of Uttarakhand two-months' time to decide pending applications.

The state also has to develop a mechanism, in coordination with Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority, to communicate reasons for rejections individually to life convicts.

Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court directed Chhattisgarh to set up a Sentence Review Board and develop an improved remission policy within two months. Pending applications are to be decided within three months, and reasons for rejection should be provided to prisoners.

Gujarat

Gujarat must:

1. Decide all pending applications for remission within two months.
2. Provide reasons for any rejected cases and ensure prisoners receive these explanations, with DLSAs offering support if needed.
3. NALSA will coordinate with the Gujarat Legal Services Authority to ensure legal assistance for prisoners facing delays or rejections.

The court scheduled the matter on December 3, 2024.

Case no. – SMW (Crl.) No. 4/2021

Case Title – In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail