Back
2026 Supreme(Cal) 268
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
Md. Amjad @ Md. Amzad @ Amjed – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Ors. – Respondents
WPA 2738 of 2025
Decided On : 11-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Remission and Release
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.432, S.432(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.227
CITY SESSIONS COURT ACT : S.5
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Competence of Judicial Secretary to disregard SSRB recommendations and binding nature of presiding judge’s opinion - The validity of the decision upon the consideration of judicial opinions and the socio-legal context reviewed. (Paras 18, 22, 50, 74)
Facts of the case:
This writ petition arises from the decision of the West Bengal Judicial Department to reject the premature release application of a convict serving life imprisonment for murder, despite prior recommendations by the SSRB for such release. The refusal was based on an opinion received from a non-presiding judge of the convicting court and cited statutory procedural failures. (Paras 1-9, 31-39)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order rejecting premature release found to lack adequate reasoning and consideration of all pertinent factors for legal remission. The opinion given did not reflect the required judicial scrutiny or fulfilling statutory prerequisites under Section 432(2). The Court ordered a fresh review of the matter considering proper procedural adherence to the law and need for socio-legal balance. (Paras 40-63)
Issues: 1) Authority and competence for rendering opinions on remission; 2) Evaluation and adequacy of judicial reasoning in opinions; 3) Judicial obligations in granting remission or premature release of convicts. (Paras 30, 32, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that procedural safeguards are vital in the remission process; mere mechanical adherence to judicial opinions without holistic evaluation contravenes legal standards. The necessity for the appropriate Government to engage in deeper consideration beyond superficial judicial advice was emphasized, ensuring that socio-legal context is addressed. (Paras 40, 73)
Result: The previous order denying the petitioner’s release is set aside; a fresh opinion from the appropriate presiding judge is mandated for reconsideration by the State authorities as required by law.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv., Ms. Sampurna Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Sananda Bhattacherjee, Adv., Mr. Debendra Nath Saha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP., Mr. Pannalal Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Adv., Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. Sujata Mukherjee, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedural history and rejection of petition (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against the rejection (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. state's opposition to the petition (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. court's analysis on the authority of the chief judge (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. evaluation of the chief judge’s opinion (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. court's remarks on procedural compliance (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. discretion of judicial secretary in recommendations (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 9. conditions for court intervention in remission cases (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 10. lack of evidence for remission application (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 11. court's order for reconsideration (Para 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 12. conclusion on arguments regarding parity (Para 70 , 71 , 72) |
JUDGMENT :
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
1. This writ petition is at the instance of a life convict. He assails an order dated December 24, 2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal whereby his prayer for premature release upon remission of his sentence of life imprisonment has been rejected.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The petitioner was arrested on May 02, 2003 in connection with New Market Police Station Case No. 113 initiated on April 12, 2003 under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “ IPC ”). He and his co-accused were thereafter committed for trial in S.T. No. 2 of November 2003/S.C. No. 80/2003.
3. Ultimately, the petitioner and his co-accused were convicted under Sections 302 /34 IPC by a judgment and order dated March 19, 2005 passed by the Learned Judge, XIIth Bench, City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta, in S.C. No. 80/2003 and both the accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction the petitioner approached this Court by filing an appeal being CRA No. 309 of 2005. The said appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated December 17, 2013. The petitioner carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which too was dismissed by an order dated July 07, 2014. The petitioner has thereafter remained in custody.
5. The petitioner’s case for premature release (along with several others) was considered by the State Sentence Review Board (hereafter “SSRB”) in its 69th meeting held on September 02, 2022 and the petitioner’s case was recommended for premature release.
6. As the petitioner was not released despite the recommendation, the petitioner’s wife followed up with a representation dated February 23, 2024 to the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal requesting for the petitioner’s premature release. The said representation too could not lead to a release order. The petitioner’s wife therefore approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPA 16927 of 2024 praying inter alia, for a direction upon the respondent to take steps and to act on the basis of the recommendation of the 69th Meeting of the SSRB.
7. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated November 20, 2024 thereby directing the Judicial Secretary to take steps to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner in line with the recommendation made by the SSRB at the earliest.
8. Pursuant to the said order dated November 20, 2024, the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal passed the order impugned thereby holding that the petitioner was not entitled to remission and premature release. The order indicates that upon the SSRB’s recommendations being communicated to the Judicial Departmen
