- In the case of Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh and ors. the Apex Court has held that a Court cannot usurp the power of the government to grant remission of sentence to convicts. It can only review the decision of the government with regard to whether the remission granted under section 432 was arbitrary or not.
- In the instant case, one Ram Chander was convicted of offences under sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 324 r/w 149 of IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His sentence was confirmed by the Chhattisgarh HC in 2013.
- After completing 16 years in confinement without remission, in September 2021, the petitioner submitted an application for premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968. The jail Superintendent sought the opinion of the Special judge on whether the petitioner can be released on remission, which the Special Judge rejected.
- The petitioner’s request was then forwarded to the Law Department of the State Government, which rejected the application on the ground that presiding Judge opined against releasing him on remission. Thus the benefit of section 433A cannot be given to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- The Apex Court held that the government has the absolute power to decide whether the application under section 432 be allowed or not. The Court also added that the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
- Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Laxman Naskar vs Union of India, the Court observed that if the opinion of the Judge does not comply with the requirements of section 432(2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for the grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case, the Government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.
- It is important to note that the following are factors which need to be considered for the grant of remission, as laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case, which were reiterated in State of Haryana vs Jagdish (2010) SCC:
- Whether the offence affects the society at large;
- The probability of it being repeated;
- Potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future;
- Whether any purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison;
- Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
- The purpose of section 432(2), according to the Court, is to make sure that the Executive takes an informed decision, and the decision of the presiding Judge should be well reasoned. In the present case, however, the Judge had simply said that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be inappropriate to grant remission. This goes against the spirit of section 432(2).
- The Court also held that the opinion of the presiding judge of the Court by which the person making an application was convicted, will simply enable the Government to make the right decision. This opinion, though kept on a very high pedestal, should not be followed in a mechanical fashion. This was held in the case of Union of India vs Sriharan (2016) SCC.
- Thus, while allowing the writ petition, the Apex Court held that the petitioner’s application must be reconsidered. The Special Judge was directed to provide a fresh opinion accompanied by adequate reasoning, taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
