The Patna High Court has issued a series of directions and recommendations to improve the remission and premature-release framework for prisoners in Bihar. The Division Bench examined how ordinary and special remission is calculated, whether the existing system permits selective treatment, and whether the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 gives excessive discretion to prison authorities.
The judgment was delivered in suo motu proceedings registered pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated November 4, 2025, in SLP (Crl.) No. 529 of 2021.
The Court framed five questions concerning the calculation of ordinary remission, the functioning of the Remission Committee, special remission under Rules 428 and 429, the position of prisoners without education or vocational training, and the extent of executive discretion under the Bihar Prison Manual.
The Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha considered written submissions from the parties and assistance from Amicus Curiae Advocate Pratik Kumar Sinha.
The Court explained that eligible convicted prisoners can earn ordinary remission based on conduct and work. Under the Manual, two days may be earned each month for good conduct and participation in institutional activities, another two days for prescribed work, and one additional day for certain work performed on Sundays and holidays.
The maximum ordinary remission is seven days in a month and 84 days in a year.
The Court also directed that prisoners must receive a duplicate copy of their History Ticket showing remission earned or forfeited.
"We direct that henceforth every prisoner shall be supplied with a duplicate copy of the History Ticket reflecting the remission earned or forfeited, so that the prisoner is fully informed and can seek rectification if necessary."
The Bench held that the executive's discretion in remission matters is subject to safeguards. While the existing rules were not found to be "absolutely selective" or to confer excessive and unbridled power, the Court stressed transparency, reasoned decisions and natural justice.
In particular, before remission already granted is deducted or seized, the prisoner must be given an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order must follow.
The Court noted that special remission under Rule 428 is available to all convicted prisoners without an educational qualification. However, Rule 429 provides an additional incentive to long-term prisoners who assist in improving educational standards or imparting vocational training.
To address possible inequality, the Court directed the State to examine whether an alternative route could be created for illiterate prisoners to earn comparable additional remission through other reformative or institutional contributions.
The Court recommended fixed timelines for premature-release proceedings, including initiating the process at least six months before the eligibility date. It also recommended mechanisms for correcting remission calculations, appeals against seizure, and greater transparency regarding life convicts' remission and premature-release cases.
The State Government was directed to place an updated list of 32 pending cases before the State Sentence Remission Board within four weeks and file a compliance report within four months. The Court thereafter disposed of the suo motu writ petition.
The judgment's case number, Bench and decision date have also been independently cross-checked against an external case-law database.
Case Details
Case Title: In view of minutes dated 17.12.2025 of Hon'ble A.C.J. based on SLP (Crl.) No. 529/2021, Bihar v. State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3315 of 2025
Judge: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Decision Date: 18 September 2026
