A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih clarified that remission can be granted without requiring a formal application from the convict or any representative.
Obligation to Consider Eligible Convicts for Remission
The Court emphasized that once a state or union territory adopts a remission policy with specified eligibility conditions, it is obligated to consider all eligible convicts, even if they do not apply. Any insistence on an application process despite an existing policy would be discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Additionally, the Court noted that in states lacking a clear remission policy, authorities might not exercise their powers in a fair and rational manner. To address this, it directed:
“All states without an exhaustive remission policy must formulate one within two months. This can either be a standalone policy or an addition to prison manuals.”
Conditions for Remission
The Court laid out key principles regarding remission conditions:
- Conditions must be reasonable, clear, and enforceable.
- They cannot be vague, oppressive, or impractical.
- Factors such as public safety, rehabilitation, and the convict’s criminal background must be considered before granting remission.
Other Key Directives
- No Automatic Cancellation: A remission order cannot be withdrawn without prior notice and a fair hearing.
- Mandatory Reasoning: Any order granting or rejecting remission must include brief written reasons, which must be communicated to the convict and relevant legal authorities.
- Monitoring by Legal Services Authorities: District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) must track remission-eligible convicts and facilitate their cases. The State Legal Services Authorities should work towards developing a real-time digital portal to manage such data.
This ruling, delivered in the case “In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail” (SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021), marks a crucial step in ensuring transparency and fairness in remission policies across the country.
