Top court warns Gujarat over delay in remission

NEw new delhi: The sublime margaret court has warned the gujerat regime that failure to implement the state’s remission policy in both letter and spirit could invite “strict penal orders”, underlining that any delay beyond the prescribed period of incarceration would render a prisoner’s detention “illegal”.A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan came down heavily on the state for dragging its feet in considering the premature release of a life convict, despite the prisoner having already completed the minimum qualifying sentence of 14 years.The court made it clear that once a state frames a remission policy, it cannot treat it as a mere formality. While acknowledging that premature release is not a fundamental right, the bench emphasised that it assumes the character of a “vested right” once the state chooses to exercise its discretion through a policy framework.Driving home the constitutional stakes, the court held that liberty cannot be held hostage to bureaucratic delay. “In matters which relate to life and liberty of a person, the Constitutional Principles have to be invoked, for the reason that every day beyond the period which in law has been prescribed, and in the present case, a statutory law relating to the period of incarceration, the person would be considered to be in illegal custody and rightly so,” noted the bench, making it clear that non-compliance with remission timelines directly implicates the fundamental right to personal liberty.The case arose from the plea of Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid convicted in a murder case, who had completed the requisite period for consideration under Gujarat’s 1992 remission policy. Despite this, the state informed the court that his case was still “being processed” and would be placed before the competent committee, which meets only a few times a year.The bench found this explanation “absolutely unacceptable”, noting that the policy itself mandates that the process for premature release must begin three months prior to the completion of 14 years of imprisonment, so that a final decision is ready by the time the eligibility threshold is reached.Jangid’s petition was argued through senior counsel Mahalakshmi Pavani.Notably, the court said in its order on Thursday that it could have already initiated proceedings against officials at every stage of the decision-making chain -- from those initiating the process to those taking the final call, but refrained from doing so for the moment.That reprieve, however, came with a stern caution. The bench warned that any future breach of the policy would trigger “strict penal orders”, including the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against erring officials.It also directed that if a final decision is not placed on record by the next hearing, senior-most officials, including the chief secretary, home secretary and inspector general of prisons, would have to personally appear before the court to explain the lapse.“In future, if the above stipulation as per the policy itself is not implemented in its entirety and mandatorily, the same shall entail strict penal orders from this Court, including, but not limited to, initiation of suo motu contempt against all the persons who do not act in terms of 5 the policy or if the final order does not come latest by the day on which the convict completes 14 years of actual incarceration,” said the bench.The court further ordered that its directions be circulated across the state through the chief secretary to ensure uniform compliance.