Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11175
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kaushik Goswami, J
Mithu Kalita Alias Mitu Kalita – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
WP(C)/7304/2025
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Criminal Remission
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.432, S.433, S.433-A
Assam Prisons Act, 2013: S.20
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.473
Headnote
(B) Personal Liberty - Decisions affecting liberty cannot be reduced to mechanical or ritualistic exercises and must reflect due application of mind to the individual facts of each case. The requirement of recording brief reasons for granting or rejecting remission is essential to enable the convict to challenge the order. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a life convict who had undergone incarceration for over 22 years (including remission), sought premature release based on a proposal by the Superintendent, Special Jail, Nagaon. The State Level Review Board, in its meeting dated 19.03.2026, decided to return numerous proposals, including the petitioner's, on the generalized ground that remission should be confined to "exceptional cases" (e.g., terminally ill) and that life prisoners should not be recommended for release merely upon completion of 14/20 years without falling into such categories.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Review Board adopted a generalized and wholesale approach instead of an individualized assessment. Despite available materials showing the petitioner's satisfactory conduct and completion of the requisite period of incarceration, the board's minutes were silent on the petitioner's specific merits, rendering the process arbitrary.
Issues: Whether the Review Board's wholesale rejection of remission proposals, based on generalized policy considerations rather than individualized assessments, is legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to have a remission application considered in a fair, reasoned, and individualized manner flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Any decision-making process that ignores individual merits in favor of broad categorization is unsustainable, especially when the state's own policy (Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015) mandates case-by-case consideration.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with direction to reconsider the case afresh and independently.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A Atreya, J Konwar, C Kalita
For the Respondents: GA, Assam
ORDER
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel and Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks consideration of his case for remission and premature release on the basis of the proposal dated 23.12.2024 prepared by the Superintendent, Special Jail, Nagaon.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who has completed 19 years, 8 months and 9 days of actual imprisonment as on 23.12.2024 and has earned remission of 2 years, 8 months and 13 days, has thereby undergone a sentence period of 22 years, 4 months and 22 days up to 23.12.2024. Claiming eligibility for remission and consequential premature release in terms of the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015 issued by the Government of Assam in the Home Department under Sections 432 , 433 and 433-A of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner submitted a prayer through the Superintendent of the Special Jail, Nagaon seeking consideration of his case for premature release.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even after the lapse of more than 150 days from the date of convening of the Review Board, no decision on the proposal for release of the petitioner had been communicated to him. Accordingly, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
5. Pertinent it is that on 20.04.2026, when this matter was taken up before this Court, Mr. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel and Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, produced a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.2026 of the State Level Review Board with the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department, as the Chairperson under Section 20 of the Assam Prisons Act, 2013. The minutes of the meeting of the Review Board reveal, inter alia, that the Board decided that remission proposals ought to be confined only to “exceptional cases”, such as terminally ill patients and cancer patients, and that prisoners undergoing life imprisonment should ordinarily not be recommended for release merely upon completion of 14/20 years unless falling within such exceptional category. Relevant portion of the aforesaid minutes is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.
“The meeting was convened to re-examine the cases of remission in respect of 32 (thirty two) life convicts for the year 2025 and review the cases of 58 (Fifty Eight) inmates undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and to recommend their premature release as per Govt. OM No. HMB.143/2010/Pt-II/194 Dated 06.10.2015.
Initiating the discussion, the Additional Chief Secretary. Home & Political Department along with the other members of the Review Board went through the Supreme Court judgement laid down in the Govt. OM incorporating necessary details for consideration of the proposals for remission alongwith the reports of the Jail Superintendents/ comments of District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police / opinion of the Convicting Confirming Courts.
After a threadbare discussion and upon satisfying itself on the merits/demerits of each proposal, the following decisions were taken by the Review Board:
1. The Govt. OM No. HMB.143/2010/Pt-II/194 dated 06.10.2015 needs to be modified and re-written due to the implementation of the BNSS.
2. The Review Board decided to strictly follow the directions given in the Supreme Court judgement which has also been given in the Govt.OM No.HMB.143/2010/Pt II/194 dated 06.10.2015.
3. The Review Board decided to consider the fewer proposals of remission and only exceptional cases of life-convicts like terminally ill patients, cancer patients etc./who has completed the stipulated 14/ 20 years of imprisonment.'
4. The Review Board suggested that the good behaviour alone cannot be the criteria for premature releas
