2026 Supreme(SC) 538

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Rohit Chaturvedi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 446 of 2023, Miscellaneous Application No. 1370 of 2024, Miscellaneous Application No. 2339 of 2024
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Important Points – (1) Remission is not an extension of sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with present and future – Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of individuals in shadow of their worst act – Nature of offence cannot be sole ground for denying remission.
(2) Reformative approach to punishment constitutes an integral component of criminal jurisprudence and remission policies are founded upon this principle.
(3) Pardon affects not only punishment prescribed for offence but also guilt of offender itself – Pardon must be distinguished from amnesty, which is a general pardon of political prisoners and an act of oblivion.
(4) Remand may not be directed mechanically where it would not serve any substantive purpose.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 [Section 473 of BNSS] – Uttarakhand State (Remission/Premature Release of Convicted Prisoners Sentenced to Life Imprisonment by Courts) Permanent Policy, 2022 – Clause 5 – Premature release from Jail – Premature release rejected on the ground that petitioner fell within Clause 5 of Policy, 2022, which is a prohibited category for grant of premature release being a case investigated by CBI – Any order affecting rights of a person and particularly his liberty must be with reasons and must reflect due application of mind – Recording of reasons is not an empty formality, it is a safeguard against arbitrariness and ensures transparency, fairness, and accountability in decision making – Absence of reasons renders it bald and makes it impossible to ascertain whether relevant factors were duly considered or not – Impugned order merely states that Competent Authority “does not concur” with proposal, without disclosing any basis for such disagreement – There is no discussion of petitioner’s conduct, applicable remission policy, or any specific adverse material, if at all, against petitioner – Such a cryptic rejection not only violates Principles of Natural Justice but also frustrates petitioner’s right to seek effective judicial review – Executive discretion, though broad in matters of remission, is not uncanalised and must necessarily be exercised on relevant, rational, and non-discriminatory considerations and not being rejected owing to irrelevant and extraneous reasons. (Paras 5.1 and 5.2)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 [Section 473 of BNSS] – Premature release from Jail – Remission is not an extension of sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with present and future – Justice does not permit permanent incarceration of individuals in shadow of their worst act – Nature of offence cannot be sole ground for denying remission – Emotive retribution is a course, incompatible with constitutional values – Decision on remission must emerge from a holistic assessment of prisoner and after balancing societal interests with prisoner’s right to be considered for release on fair and reasonable criteria – In a liberal constitutional order, punishment and all its incidents, including remission, must necessarily be justified through reason and not outrage – Remand may not be directed mechanically where it would not serve any substantive purpose – Considering that petitioner has already undergone more than twenty-two years of incarceration and all relevant material is already before this Court, relegating petitioner to another round of administrative consideration would only prolong proceedings unnecessarily. (Paras 5.4, 7, 7.1, 7.2)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 [Section 473 of BNSS] – Uttarakhand State (Remission/Premature Release of Convicted Prisoners Sentenced to Life Imprisonment by Courts) Permanent Policy, 2022 – Clause 5 – Premature release from Jail – Prolonged incarceration undergone by petitioner demonstrates that he has already suffered consequences of conviction for an extensive duration and has remained subject to rigours of imprisonment for a considerable part of his life – One of co-accused, has already been granted benefit of premature release – Petitioner’s plea of parity is founded on admitted factual position arising out of treatment accorded to another convict in very same case – Petitioner’s case deserves to be considered in light of reformative theory underlying modern criminal justice system – Object of punishment is not merely retribution, but also reformation and rehabilitation of offender so as to enable his eventual reintegration into society – Petitioner is entitled to benefit of premature release/remission and since he is already on interim bail, his surrender shall not be required. (Paras 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10 and 11)

(D) Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 [Section 473 of BNSS] – Sentence – Pardon, reprieve, remission and commutation – Pardon is an act of grace from authority entrusted with execution of laws, which exempts individual from punishment imposed for offence committed – Pardon affects not only punishment prescribed for offence but also guilt of offender itself – Pardon must be distinguished from amnesty, which is a general pardon of political prisoners and an act of oblivion – Amnesty may result in release of convict, but it does not erase any disqualification incurred by reason of conviction – Reprieve means stay or postponement of execution of sentence, particularly capital sentence – It is akin to release on probation for good conduct under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. akin to Section 401 of BNSS – Remission, in contrast, merely reduces period of sentence without altering its character – Power of remission, being an executive power, cannot produce same effect as an appellate or revisional order reducing sentence judicially imposed by trial court and substituting it with a lesser sentence – Commutation involves substitution of one form of sentence with a lighter sentence of a different nature. (Paras 6.1 and 6.2)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing letter dated 09.07.2025 of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which rejected recommendation of State of Uttarakhand and disallowed plea of premature release of petitioner who has been in jail for approximately twenty-two (22) years.

Findings of Court:

Since petitioner is entitled to the benefit of premature release/remission and since he is already on interim bail, his surrender shall not be required, and respondents shall treat him as having been prematurely released/remitted in terms of present order.

Result – Writ Petition allowed.