Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, ABDUL MOI, SAURABH LAVANIA
Ambrish Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate, Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A.-I, Shri Bipul Kumar Singh and Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsels for the State-respondents, Shri Ravi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Ms Abhilasha Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned Amicus Curiae and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing from the Bar.
2. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.2024 passed in this petition has referred the following questions for consideration by the Larger Bench:
The court established that the authority to grant remission rests with the government, and courts can only compel timely decisions on remission applications without granting bail en masse.
The court established that general directions for the premature release of convicts based on pending remission applications are not legally permissible and exceed the jurisdiction of the Chief Judici....
Procedural safeguards in remission applications must be strictly followed, and reliance on insufficiently reasoned opinions can render decisions unsustainable.
The discretion to suspend or remit the sentence lies with the State Government, but the decision must be in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. The opinion of the Presiding Judge must fulfill ....
The court directed that prisoners eligible under state policy for premature release must be evaluated fairly, without undue reliance on singular opinions, safeguarding against arbitrary treatment.
The court clarified that life convicts are eligible for premature release considerations, with proper compliance of procedural requirements, including set-off periods of incarceration during trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article