Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: Supreme Court

THe sublime margaret court on tues directed all states to ascertain if any inmate was languishing in prisons beyond the rigid term of sentence as it underlined that such prisoners would be entitled to release without seeking any further order for remission.The order came in a petition filed by Sukhdev Yadav, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, whose life term was converted to a fixed term sentence of 20 years, without any remission, by the top court in October 2016. After the sentence period ended on March 9, Yadav’s application for remission was rejected by the Delhi government. He then approached the apex court, which first granted furlough on June 26 and ordered his release on July 29.In a detailed judgment giving reasons for releasing Yadav, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan said, “On completion of 20 years of sentence, it was wholly unnecessary to seek remission as during the period of 20 years, he was not entitled to any remission.”“From March 9, 2025 (when he completed the 20-year sentence), he cannot be kept in jail. His continuous incarceration after March 9 till June 25 (when he was released on furlough) was illegal,” the bench held.Earlier, the Delhi government had objected to Yadav’s plea for release, stating that the 20-year sentence was stipulated within the life term as a period within which he was not entitled to remission. After he had undergone this period, the Sentence Review Board (SRB), which considers remission of prisoners, refused him “premature release” on March 28 stating he has “potential to commit crime”.The top court noticed the facts of the case and felt concerned whether such a legal interpretation was coming in the way of release of other similarly situated convicts. “This court has held that prisoners are languishing behind bars even after being acquitted or on completion of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for their release, if not wanted in any other case,” the bench ordered.Underlining the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees life and liberty, the bench added: “We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case.”It further directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to communicate the list of such prisoners to the state and district legal services authority for implementation of the judgment.The bench further clarified that when a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment with an accompanying condition that such a convict shall not be entitled to remission for a 20-year period, they ought to be released on completion of the said term. However, this will be subject to the condition that other punishments for the accompanying offences run concurrently and the convict is not wanted in any other case.In such a scenario, the court held that the convict will not be required to apply for remission as the life sentence has been replaced with a sentence of 20 years without remission.Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that with the October 2016 ruling by the top court, Yadav cannot be allowed to remain in jail beyond completion of the fixed-term sentence. Releasing Yadav on July 29, the court had said: “Once the court has quantified a sentence without remission for 20 years, there is no sentence beyond 20 years.”The complainant in the case Nilam Katara, the mother of Nitish Katara, had also argued and opposed Yadav’s release claiming that the witnesses have been living in fear.