Supreme Court Questions Remission Condition That Convict Must Behave "Decently"

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 3) expressed surprise at a condition imposed to grant remission to a convict that he should behave "decently". The Court orally said that vague conditions cannot be imposed.

While reserving judgment in the case, the Court also remarked that principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of section 432 of the CrPC.

“Principles of natural justice will have to read into section 432(3) of CrPC. It cannot be that on every default remission will be cancelled”, Justice Abhay Oka orally remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP regarding the conditions set by the State of Gujarat under Section 432 of the CrPC while granting permanent remission to a life convict.

The SLP was filed by a murder convict originally with the grievance that the state was not deciding his remission plea. Subsequently, by an order dated September 15, 2023, the Gujarat government granted permanent remission while imposing certain conditions. On October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court prima facie opined that these conditions appeared to be inappropriate.

The conditions imposed by the Gujarat government for remission included:

1. The petitioner must behave "decently" for two years, and for this purpose submit two sureties from respectable individuals, and must not threaten the complainant or witnesses.

2. If the petitioner commits any cognizable offence or causes serious injury to any citizen or property after release, he will be re-arrested and required to serve the remaining sentence in jail.

3. The petitioner must report to the nearest police station once a month for a year after release.

During the hearing today, Justice Oka questioned the conditions, He said that while Section 432(1) of the CrPC allows the State to impose conditions for remission, these conditions must be reasonable and backed by a clear rationale.

He further emphasized that the State has to demonstrate why specific conditions were necessary in each case. "Under section 432(1) you have power to grant remission conditionally and unconditionally. So when you exercise that power firstly you have to come to the conclusion why in a particular case conditions should be imposed. And secondly conditions have to be reasonable. There has to be application of mind why these conditions are imposed. Show us how these are reasonable. Decently is a word which is meaningless", he said.

Justice Oka also questioned the practicality of enforcing the condition that the petitioner must behave "decently" for two years. He remarked, "What is the meaning of decent? If such vague conditions are imposed, it will be impossible for a person to get surety. Who will assure that the person will behave decently?"

Regarding the second condition, which said that the convict will be re-arrested on commission of cognizable offence, Justice Oka noted, “We understand if you say after the grant of permanent remission, he is convicted of a cognizable offence, we can understand that. 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?”

The counsel for the State of Gujarat defended the conditions, arguing that they were necessary to prevent the convict from reoffending. “If we wait for a conviction, he will continue doing offences,” she argued, asserting that the State has a responsibility to protect society.

However, Justice Oka 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 added.

Justice Oka highlighted that under Section 432(3) of the CrPC, the appropriate government may cancel remission if conditions are not fulfilled, but this does not mean that every violation should automatically lead to cancellation.

“Sub-section (3) says if the conditions are not fulfilled the appropriate government may cancel. So not every violation has to lead to cancellation. Now please see second condition. We understand if you say after being released he should not commit offence. But to say he will be arrested immediately that is contrary to sub-section (3)...Condition can be that he will not commit any offence after being released on permanent remission. Here condition 2 leads to automatic cancellation of remission”,

He also emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be read into Section 432(3) of the CrPC, implying that automatic cancellation of remission for any violation would not be justifiable.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the matter,

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

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