The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment dated February 18, 2025, has underscored that conditions imposed by the government while granting remission to convicts must be reasonable and not oppressive. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that it is the duty of the government to consider remission for eligible prisoners, even in the absence of an application from the convict.

The Court clarified that remission should not be contingent upon a convict filing an application. Instead, prison authorities and government officials must proactively evaluate the eligibility of prisoners based on established policies. This directive aligns with the ruling in Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), which held that

"once a policy for remission is in place, it is the duty of the State to ensure that all eligible convicts are considered without requiring them to apply."

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Presence at Crime Scene Alone Does Not Prove Common Intention Under IPC Section 34

The Court stressed that remission conditions must be:

Clear and enforceable: Conditions should not be vague or impractical.

Rehabilitative in nature: The objective should be the social reintegration of the convict.

Balanced with public safety: The impact on society and victims must be considered.

Non-discriminatory: Conditions should not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

"The conditions cannot be oppressive. When a convict is released by granting relief of permanent remission, it is necessary to ensure that he is rehabilitated in society."

The ruling cited Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024), which held that arbitrary conditions violate fundamental rights and should be struck down.

The Court outlined four critical factors to be considered before finalizing remission conditions:

Thorough Evaluation: Various aspects, including the nature of the crime and convict's background, must be assessed.

Prevention of Recidivism: Conditions should ensure that convicts do not relapse into criminal activities.

Feasibility of Compliance: Conditions should not be so stringent that the convict cannot fulfill them.

Clarity and Specificity: Conditions must be well-defined and not open to misinterpretation.

Read Also:- SC Clarifies Penalty Conditions Under Section 271AAA for Undisclosed Income During Search Operations:[Income Tax Act]

If a convict violates remission conditions, the government has the power to revoke it. However, the Court ruled that revocation must follow due process. The convict must be given a show cause notice, an opportunity to respond, and a reasoned decision must be recorded.

"Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel remission. The allegations must be substantiated, and a minor breach should not warrant cancellation."

This ruling ensures that convicts are not unfairly stripped of remission benefits without a fair hearing.

The Court emphasized that every order—whether granting or rejecting remission—must include brief but clear reasons. This ensures transparency and allows convicts to challenge decisions if necessary.

"The order granting or refusing remission must contain reasons and should be immediately communicated to the convict and the District Legal Services Authority."

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been tasked with ensuring that these guidelines are followed. States without an established remission policy must formulate one within two months. Additionally, District Legal Services Authorities must oversee the process and maintain records of eligible convicts.