In a significant ruling on the rights of life convicts seeking premature release, the Gauhati High Court has held that the seriousness of an offence, by itself, cannot be the sole reason to refuse or defer remission. The Court directed the Assam State Level Review Board to reconsider the remission proposals of four life convicts after examining all relevant legal factors instead of relying only on the nature of the crime.
Justice Manish Choudhury observed that every remission application must be decided individually and in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the State Government's remission policy.
Background of the Case
The judgment dealt with four writ petitions filed by life convicts who had each spent more than two decades in prison. Three petitioners challenged the decisions of the Assam State Level Review Board, which had deferred consideration of their applications for premature release by citing the heinous nature of the offences or an unclear opinion from the trial court.
The fourth petitioner sought a direction for consideration of his remission proposal after prison authorities had already forwarded his case to the Review Board. He was over 75 years old at the time his case came up for consideration.
The petitioners argued that the Review Board ignored several legally relevant considerations such as their conduct in prison, the likelihood of reoffending, recommendations from prison authorities, opinions of trial courts, age and health, and instead focused mainly on the gravity of the original offences.
Court's Observations
Justice Manish Choudhury examined the legal framework governing remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Assam Government's Office Memorandum dated October 6, 2015.
The Court noted that the policy requires authorities to consider multiple factors, including the prisoner's conduct, age, physical condition, possibility of committing another offence, whether continued imprisonment serves any useful purpose, and other relevant circumstances.
Rejecting the approach adopted by the Review Board, the Court observed:
"The nature of the offence cannot be the sole ground for denying remission."
The Court relied upon recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that remission decisions must emerge from a holistic assessment of the prisoner rather than only the seriousness of the offence.
The Bench further observed that where the opinion of the trial judge is incomplete or lacks adequate reasoning, the authorities cannot simply reject or defer the proposal. Instead, they must seek a fresh opinion after ensuring that all relevant legal factors are considered.
Court Finds Deficiencies in Review Board's Process
The High Court found that the Review Board had failed to examine the cases individually despite the State policy requiring case-by-case consideration.
In one petition, remission was deferred merely because the offence involved the kidnapping and murder of a minor child. In another, the proposal was deferred because the petitioner was described as the "prime accused" in a murder case. In a third matter, the proposal was postponed solely because the trial court's opinion was considered unclear.
The Court held that these reasons, by themselves, were legally insufficient.
Justice Choudhury also pointed out that one petitioner was more than 75 years old, yet the Review Board failed to obtain the medical opinion required under the State's remission policy before considering his case.
In another case, the Court noted that a co-convict sentenced in the same judgment had already been granted remission, while the petitioner's application had been deferred without adequate reasons, raising concerns regarding parity.
Decision
Allowing the petitions in part, the Gauhati High Court directed the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, to place all four remission proposals before the State Level Review Board again within July 2026.
The Court also directed the authorities to obtain a fresh opinion from the concerned Presiding Judge in one of the cases where the earlier opinion lacked adequate reasoning.
The High Court instructed that every proposal must be reconsidered strictly in accordance with the applicable law, the Assam Government's remission policy, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
It further directed that the final decisions be promptly communicated to the prisoners through the concerned prison authorities and copies be forwarded to the respective District Legal Services Authorities.
Case Details
Case Title: Ganesh Bhumij @ Faloo Karmakar v. State of Assam & Others (along with connected matters)
Judge: Justice Manish Choudhury
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
