The Meghalaya High Court has set aside a decision of the State's Sentence Review Committee that refused to recommend the premature release of a life convict, holding that the committee relied mainly on the prisoner's age and physical fitness without properly considering his conduct during incarceration.
Justice B. Bhattacharjee ruled that while remission is not a legal right, authorities must exercise their discretion fairly and in accordance with the State's remission policy and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shri Suraj Gupta, challenged the Sentence Review Committee's decision dated February 4, 2026, rejecting his application for remission of sentence. He had been convicted in 2014 in a sessions case and sentenced to life imprisonment, with an additional seven-year sentence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was later upheld by the Meghalaya High Court in 2019.
Court records showed that by the time his remission request was considered, he had spent more than 19 years and seven months in prison.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the committee had mechanically rejected the application by observing that the petitioner was 40 years old, physically fit and therefore could potentially commit another crime. It was also submitted that the favourable recommendation of the Superintendent of the District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong, regarding the prisoner's conduct had been ignored without assigning any reason.
Court's Observations
The High Court examined the committee's reasoning and found that the conclusion about the prisoner's possible future conduct appeared to be influenced mainly by his age and physical fitness.
The Court noted that the prison authorities had reported the petitioner's good conduct, maturity and efforts to maintain peace and harmony during his incarceration. However, the committee failed to explain why it disregarded those observations.
Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, the High Court observed,
"Age, physical fitness of the convict and gravity of the crime committed cannot be the only factors for consideration."
It added that any assessment of whether a prisoner may commit offences in the future must be based on the person's conduct and change in attitude during imprisonment rather than assumptions linked to age.
The Court also reiterated that although remission is a discretionary power of the State, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Authorities must consider the prisoner's antecedents, behaviour in jail and the applicable remission policy before arriving at a decision.
Court's Decision
Finding the committee's decision legally unsustainable, the Meghalaya High Court quashed the order dated February 4, 2026.
The matter has been remitted to the Sentence Review Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with the State Remission Policy and the Supreme Court's guidelines. The Court directed the committee to reconsider the petitioner's request and pass a fresh decision within 30 days from the date of receiving the judgment.
The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Suraj Gupta v. State of Meghalaya & Others
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026
Judge: Justice B. Bhattacharjee
Decision Date: 16 July 2026
