(हिंदी Translation Below)
In a significant judgment delivered on February 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has introduced a transformative framework for granting remission and bail, reinforcing principles of fairness, transparency, and rehabilitation.
The ruling in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail addresses long-standing ambiguities within the criminal justice system and establishes a precedent that mandates uniformity in the premature release of convicts. The Court has underscored that where a state or Union Territory has an existing remission policy, it is the government’s obligation to proactively consider all eligible convicts, eliminating the need for individual applications. This ensures that marginalized prisoners, particularly those lacking legal awareness or resources, are not deprived of their right to early release due to systemic oversight or procedural barriers.
A crucial directive emerging from the judgment is the requirement for all states to draft clear remission policies within sixty days if they do not already have one. These policies may be incorporated within prison manuals or stand as independent guidelines but must serve the fundamental objective of eliminating arbitrary decision-making and promoting consistent and humane treatment of convicts.
The Court has also laid down principles ensuring that conditions imposed on remission are reasonable and not oppressive. Conditions must be aimed at the reintegration of convicts into society, be clearly defined to avoid vagueness, and must not nullify the benefits of remission through excessively restrictive terms.
While factors such as the convict’s criminal history, nature of the offense, and public safety may be considered, the overarching framework must prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures.
The Court has further ruled that remission, once granted, cannot be revoked automatically upon breach of conditions. Any such revocation must adhere to due process, requiring the issuance of a show-cause notice, an opportunity for the convict to respond, and a reasoned order from the authorities. The judgment makes it clear that minor infractions, such as missing a probation meeting, do not warrant an outright cancellation of remission.
The need for transparency in remission decisions has been strongly emphasized, mandating that authorities provide written reasons for granting or denying remission. Convicts must be informed of adverse decisions and their right to appeal, with copies of such orders being forwarded to District Legal Services Authorities for oversight.
The ruling addresses systemic neglect within prisons, particularly affecting convicts who are poor, illiterate, or have served prolonged sentences. By shifting the responsibility of remission consideration to jail superintendents and legal services, the Court has introduced a safeguard against bureaucratic apathy.
The judgment signifies a shift towards a rehabilitative approach, as evidenced by the emphasis on reasonable conditions such as counseling and vocational training. In doing so, the Court has reinforced the principle that remission is not merely a mechanism for reducing prison populations but a tool for ensuring convicts do not relapse into criminal behavior post-release.
Furthermore, the judgment imposes necessary checks on governmental discretion under Sections 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ensuring that the exercise of remission powers is not arbitrary or discriminatory.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been tasked with monitoring the implementation of these directives, maintaining real-time data on eligible convicts, and facilitating legal aid to challenge wrongful rejections of remission. District Legal Services Authorities are expected to act as watchdogs to ensure compliance with the Court’s mandate.
This ruling is not just a procedural refinement but a moral reckoning for India’s criminal justice system. It reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty, ensuring that the right to early release is not contingent upon an individual’s economic or social status.
As Justice Abhay S. Oka aptly stated, “The promise of equality in our Constitution would not be fulfilled if liberty were conditional on an individual’s resources.”
With states now racing against time to formulate humane remission policies, this judgment serves as a reminder that justice is only complete when it is dispensed equitably and with due consideration for human dignity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
समयपूर्व रिहाई और जमानत पर नया दृष्टिकोण
भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने क्षमादान और जमानत प्रदान करने के लिए एक परिवर्तनकारी ढांचा पेश किया है, जो निष्पक्षता, पारदर्शिता और पुनर्वास के सिद्धांतों को मजबूत करता है।
'इन रे: पॉलिसी स्ट्रेटेजी फॉर ग्रांट ऑफ बेल' मामले में दिया गया यह फैसला आपराधिक न्याय प्रणाली में लंबे समय से चली आ रही अस्पष्टताओं को स्पष्ट करता है और दोषियों की समय से पूर्व रिहाई में समानता लाने के लिए एक मिसाल स्थापित करता है।
अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया है कि जहाँ किसी राज्य या केंद्र शासित प्रदेश में पहले से क्षमादान नीति मौजूद है, वहाँ सरकार की यह जिम्मेदारी है कि वह सभी योग्य दोषियों पर विचार करे, जिससे व्यक्तिगत आवेदन की आवश्यकता समाप्त हो जाए। यह सुनिश्चित करता है कि कानूनी जानकारी या संसाधनों की कमी के कारण हाशिए पर मौजूद कैदी समयपूर्व रिहाई के अपने अधिकार से वंचित न रह जाएं।
इस निर्णय का एक महत्वपूर्ण निर्देश यह है कि जिन राज्यों के पास स्पष्ट क्षमादान नीतियाँ नहीं हैं, उन्हें साठ दिनों के भीतर ऐसी नीतियाँ बनानी होंगी। ये नीतियाँ जेल नियमावली में शामिल की जा सकती हैं या स्वतंत्र दिशानिर्देश के रूप में खड़ी रह सकती हैं, लेकिन इनका उद्देश्य मनमानी निर्णय लेने को समाप्त करना और दोषियों के प्रति एक समान और मानवीय व्यवहार को बढ़ावा देना होगा।
अदालत ने यह भी निर्देश दिया है कि क्षमादान की शर्तें तार्किक और गैर-प्रताड़नात्मक होनी चाहिए। शर्तों का उद्देश्य दोषियों का समाज में पुनः एकीकरण होना चाहिए, इन्हें स्पष्ट रूप से परिभाषित किया जाना चाहिए ताकि अस्पष्टता न हो, और अत्यधिक प्रतिबंधात्मक नियमों के माध्यम से क्षमादान के लाभ को निरस्त नहीं किया जाना चाहिए।
हालाँकि, दोषी के आपराधिक इतिहास, अपराध की प्रकृति और सार्वजनिक सुरक्षा जैसे कारकों पर विचार किया जा सकता है, लेकिन समग्र रूपरेखा को दंडात्मक उपायों की तुलना में पुनर्वास को प्राथमिकता देनी चाहिए।
इसके अलावा, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी निर्णय दिया कि एक बार दिया गया क्षमादान, यदि उसकी शर्तों का उल्लंघन होता है, तो स्वतः रद्द नहीं किया जा सकता। किसी भी प्रकार की निरस्तीकरण प्रक्रिया को विधिपूर्ण प्रक्रिया का पालन करना होगा, जिसमें कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी करना, दोषी को उत्तर देने का अवसर देना और संबंधित अधिकारियों द्वारा एक उचित आदेश पारित करना शामिल है। अदालत ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि मामूली उल्लंघन, जैसे कि परिवीक्षा बैठक में अनुपस्थिति, सीधे क्षमादान रद्द करने का आधार नहीं हो सकता।
क्षमादान निर्णयों में पारदर्शिता सुनिश्चित करने की आवश्यकता को सख्ती से रेखांकित किया गया है, जिससे अधिकारियों को क्षमादान स्वीकृत या अस्वीकृत करने के लिखित कारण प्रदान करने होंगे। दोषियों को प्रतिकूल निर्णयों की जानकारी दी जानी चाहिए और उन्हें अपील करने के अधिकार के बारे में सूचित किया जाना चाहिए, जबकि ऐसे आदेशों की प्रतियाँ जिला कानूनी सेवा प्राधिकरणों को निरीक्षण के लिए भेजी जानी चाहिए।
यह फैसला जेलों में प्रणालीगत उपेक्षा की समस्या को संबोधित करता है, विशेष रूप से उन दोषियों के संबंध में जो गरीब, निरक्षर हैं या लंबे समय से सजा काट रहे हैं। अदालत ने क्षमादान पर विचार करने की जिम्मेदारी जेल अधीक्षकों और कानूनी सेवाओं को सौंपकर नौकरशाही उदासीनता के खिलाफ एक सुरक्षा कवच स्थापित किया है।
यह निर्णय एक पुनर्वास-आधारित दृष्टिकोण की ओर बदलाव का संकेत देता है, जैसा कि परामर्श और व्यावसायिक प्रशिक्षण जैसी उचित शर्तों पर जोर देने से स्पष्ट है। ऐसा करके, अदालत ने इस सिद्धांत को मजबूत किया है कि क्षमादान केवल जेल जनसंख्या को कम करने का एक साधन नहीं है, बल्कि यह सुनिश्चित करने का एक उपकरण भी है कि दोषी रिहाई के बाद फिर से आपराधिक गतिविधियों में शामिल न हों।
इसके अलावा, यह निर्णय आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 432 और भारतीय न्याय संहिता की धारा 473 के तहत सरकारी विवेकाधिकार पर आवश्यक नियंत्रण लगाता है, जिससे यह सुनिश्चित किया जा सके कि क्षमादान की शक्ति का प्रयोग मनमाने या भेदभावपूर्ण तरीके से न हो।
राष्ट्रीय कानूनी सेवा प्राधिकरण (NALSA) को इन निर्देशों के कार्यान्वयन की निगरानी करने, पात्र दोषियों पर वास्तविक समय डेटा बनाए रखने और गलत तरीके से अस्वीकार किए गए क्षमादान को चुनौती देने के लिए कानूनी सहायता प्रदान करने का कार्य सौंपा गया है। जिला कानूनी सेवा प्राधिकरणों को यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए निगरानी रखने की अपेक्षा की गई है कि अदालत के निर्देशों का पालन किया जाए।
यह निर्णय केवल एक प्रक्रियात्मक सुधार नहीं है, बल्कि भारत की आपराधिक न्याय प्रणाली के लिए एक नैतिक मंथन भी है। यह संविधान द्वारा प्रदत्त समानता और स्वतंत्रता की गारंटी को बनाए रखने के लिए सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की प्रतिबद्धता को दर्शाता है, जिससे यह सुनिश्चित किया जा सके कि समयपूर्व रिहाई का अधिकार किसी व्यक्ति की आर्थिक या सामाजिक स्थिति पर निर्भर न हो।
न्यायमूर्ति अभय एस. ओका ने उपयुक्त रूप से कहा,
"हमारे संविधान में निहित समानता का वादा तब तक पूरा नहीं होगा जब तक स्वतंत्रता को व्यक्ति के संसाधनों पर निर्भर बना दिया जाए।"
अब जबकि राज्य अपनी मानवीय क्षमादान नीतियाँ तैयार करने की समय सीमा के भीतर हैं, यह निर्णय इस बात की याद दिलाता है कि न्याय केवल तभी पूर्ण होता है जब उसे समान रूप से और मानव गरिमा को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रदान किया जाए।
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topics
CrPC.432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.—(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.
(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with:
Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and— (a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced,
it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or (b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.
(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.
473. Power to suspend or remit sentences.
(1)When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
(2)Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3)If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4)The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.
(5)The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with:Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and-(a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or(b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.
(6)The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Sanhita or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.
(7)In this section and in section 474, the expression "appropriate Government" means,-(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government;(b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.
THE SOP OF NALSA
19) The SOP issued by NALSA on the subject of premature release is very exhaustive and needs to be implemented in its true letter and spirit. More often than not, we have noticed that the convicts whose prayer for premature release is rejected are not well informed. Writ petitions are being filed in this court wherein either the facts are not fully stated, or there is suppression of facts. The reason is that most of the convicts are placed in such a position that they find it difficult to give correct information to their advocates. Clause 4.3 of the NALSA SOP is of utmost importance and needs strict implementation
PRESIDING OFFICER’S DUTY
(20) When the Presiding officer's opinion is sought as per SubSections (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNNS, the Presiding Officer must submit his opinion at the earliest considering the fact that the issue of liberty of the convict is involved.
(21) We, therefore, record the following conclusions: (a) Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission. When the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate
Government contains such policy guidelines, the aforesaid direction will apply; b) We direct those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months from today;
(c) Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission. Consideration of various factors, which are mentioned in the paragraph 13 above by way of illustration, is necessary before finalizing the conditions. The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates himself in the society. The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission.
The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed;
(d) Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison. The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities. It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.
(e) As held in the case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar4, an order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons;
(f) The District Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to implement NALSA SOP in its true letter and spirit. g) Further, the District Legal Services Authorities shall also monitor implementation of conclusion (a) as recorded above.
For this purpose, the District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful in terms of conclusion
(a). The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.
(22) In terms of what we have held earlier, various issues raised regarding the grant of permanent remission stand answered on the above terms.
Other issues will be considered on the dates already fixed.
(23) A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to NALSA which in turn will forward the same to the Legal Service SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.4 OF 2021 Page 21 of 21
Authorities of the States and Union Territories to enable them to monitor implementation of the directions issued under this Judgment.
(24) We must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Liz Mathew, learned senior counsel and Shri Navneet R.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
February 18, 2025.
Comments