Don’t deny remission solely on trial judge’s opinion: Supreme Court

According to the bench, overemphasis on trial judge’s opinion would render appropriate government’s decision on a remission plea “unsustainable”.

New Delhi The ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformation, the Supreme Court has held, adding a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of premature release to reformed prisoners, based solely on a trial judge’s opinion, could defeat the purpose of the remission policy.

The ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformation (File photo)

Sounding a word of caution against overdrawing on crime, with little or no attention to the criminal, a bench led by justice S Ravindra Bhat highlighted the need to balance societal interests with the rights of the convict, as it called for considering a wide range of factors that must be considered while deciding on remission.

According to the bench, which also include justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, overemphasis on the trial judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission plea “unsustainable”.

“The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view – which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record – is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strike at the heart and subvert the concept of remission – as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation – in a modern legal system,” said the court’s judgment, delivered on Friday.

The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) requires a state government to obtain the views of the trial court that convicted the prisoner, and that of probation officer and jail officials before a decision on the remission plea is taken. A life term convict becomes entitled to remission only after serving at least 14 years in jail.

The bench said that if the trial judge’s report is only reflective of the facts and circumstances that led to the conviction of a prisoner, and is merely a reiteration of the circumstances available to the judge at least 14 years earlier, then such a report cannot carry predominance because it focusses on the crime and not on the criminal.

The probation officer and the jail authorities are usually in a far better position to comment on a convict’s post-conviction reformation, noted the court, as it dealt with a petition by a life term convict from Bihar whose remission plea was rejected by the state government despite his having served over 24 years in jail in a murder case. The plea was turned down twice between 2021 and April 2023 after the trial judge gave an adverse opinion against prematurely releasing him while referring to the gravity of the crime.

The top court, however, underscored that an extensive consideration of factors at the sentencing stage tends to erase the reformative journey the convicts may have undertaken as a result of their long incarceration.

“It has been repeatedly emphasised that the aim, and ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformative, after the offender undergoes a sufficiently long spell of punishment through imprisonment...The appropriate government should take a holistic view of all the opinions received (in terms of the relevant rules), including the judicial view of the presiding judge of the concerned court, keeping in mind the purpose and objective of remission,” it said.

The bench enumerated some of the relevant factors to be taken into account for the government at the time of considering remission, which included possibility of the convict to commit crimes in the future, socioeconomic conditions, convict’s age, state of heath, familial relationships and possibility of reintegration, extent of earned remission, educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, work done, jail conduct and the overall development as a human being.

“The [Remission] Board thus should not entirely rely either on the presiding judge, or the report prepared by the police. In this court’s considered view, it would also serve the ends of justice if the appropriate government had the benefit of a report contemporaneously prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting/interviewing the convict that has applied for premature release,” it added.

The court said: “If a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of remission, which ultimately results in premature release, is repeatedly adopted, the entire idea of limiting incarceration for long periods (sometimes spanning a third or more of a convict’s lifetime and in others, result in an indefinite sentence), would be defeated. This could result in a sense of despair and frustration among inmates, who might consider themselves reformed – but continue to be condemned in prison.”

In the present case, the bench asked the state government to initiate the process afresh and seek the opinion of all the authorities, including the trial judge, yet again. The Remission Board, the court directed, shall decide the plea within preferably within three months.

The court, in its judgment, also recorded its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by advocates Randhir Kumar Ojha, appearing for the convict, and Azmat Hayat Amanullah, who represented the Bihar government in the matter.