The right to remission is not a fundamental right and is subject to government policies; courts cannot compel states to grant remission.

ORDER :

1. All the writ petitions are filed seeking release from Prison by giving special remission. The petitioners are relying upon various government orders issued by the State. The following are the details of the Government Orders on which the petitioners are relying and challenging the inaction on the part of the State in releasing them in accordance with the government orders:

2. The petitioners are challenging the state's inaction in failing to follow various government orders, which, according to the petitioners, should be applicable to them and for which they are entitled to remission. It is submitted that several prisoners were extended the benefits conferred on them by implementing the government orders. It is submitted that the respondents, for the reasons best known to themselves, have arbitrarily denied extending the benefit of government orders to the petitioners.

3. The petitioners, who are convicted and undergoing imprisonment, claim that the denial of the benefit of government orders to them is a discriminatory act on the part of the State. They argue that when a few of the convicts were released and granted remission, this was not applied to them. There is no rational basis for the State's denial of the said benefit to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that for the grant of remission to any convict, the convict must be eligible for the grant of remission as per the government orders issued. If the case of the petitioners does not fall within the teeth of the government orders relied upon by the petitioners, they cannot seek remission as a matter of fundamental right.

5. It is also submitted that several factors facilitate the State's action in granting remission to convicts in prison. Only those cases deemed appropriate and eligible for the grant of remission were considered by the State, and prisoners were released in such cases. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot be placed on parity with other prisons that have been released by the grant of remission and seek remission on the same terms as others.

-

6. It is submitted that, far as the claim of the petitioner in WP.No.11530 of 2023 is concerned, the GO was issued on 07.08.2004, and the petitioner should claim remission by GOMs.No.190, the convict should be in jail undergoing sentence as on the issuance of the said government order. The petitioner was convicted in 2006; therefore, the same cannot be applied to the petitioner's case. It is submitted that a similar case is that of the petitioner in WP.No.11531 of 2023, wherein the petitioner was convicted in 2006; therefore, the petitioner cannot seek remission by relying on GOMs.No.190.

7. It is further submitted that, far as the case of the petitioner in WP.No.11532 of 2023 is concerned, GOMs.No.19 was issued on 27.01.2000 on the eve of the Republic Day as a one-time measure. The petitioner was convicted on 7^th September 2001, and therefore cannot claim the benefit of GOMs.No. 19.

8. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner in WP.No.11537 of 2023 is concerned, the petitioner was convicted on 16.07.2007 and cannot