Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 111231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Sundresh, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ
IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) No(s). 4/2021 | SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Liz Mathew (Amicus Curiae), Devenash Mohta (Amicus Curiae)

The court established that state remission policies must be strictly implemented to prevent unnecessary incarceration, mandating that consideration for release occur six months before eligibility. Furthermore, high courts are required to exercise continuous supervisory jurisdiction over these policies and ensure the timely disposal of pending criminal appeals.

Headnote:(A) Prison Administration - Remission and Premature Release - Implementation of policies - States directed to implement draft policies and rules to ensure uniformity - Failure to comply necessitates judicial oversight - Requirement to initiate consideration for release at least six months prior to eligibility to avoid unwarranted incarceration - Need for compliance in letter and spirit to overcome administrative difficulties regarding institutional concurrence. (Paras 2, 5, 10, 11)

(B) Judicial Supervision - Constitutional Mandate - High Courts requested to register suo moto proceedings and constitute division benches to monitor and supervise the implementation of remission and premature release policies - Reporting of progress via affidavit mandated. (Para 9)

(C) Appellate Procedure - Disposal of Criminal Appeals - Compliance with earlier directions for reducing pendency - Final extension of time granted to various high courts - Strict adherence to deadlines mandated with no further extensions to be entertained. (Paras 2, 3 of second part)

Facts of the case:
The proceedings pertain to the status of compliance by various states regarding the implementation of policies for the premature release of convicts and the adherence by high courts to directives concerning the disposal of pending criminal appeals. Several states failed to adopt the prescribed draft policies, and numerous high courts remained in default of orders requiring the clearance of case backlogs.

Findings of Court:
The court granted final extensions to defaulting states to implement remission policies, noting that any legislative hurdles must be addressed expeditiously. It affirmed that states must initiate the assessment for premature release at least six months before a convict becomes eligible. To ensure long-term oversight, the court directed high courts to institutionalize administrative monitoring through specialized benches and reiterated that pending criminal appeals must be resolved within strict timelines.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the effective implementation of state-level remission policies to prevent unnecessary incarceration, the establishment of a supervisory mechanism for state policy compliance, and the mandate for the timely disposal of long-pending criminal appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to timely consideration for premature release is a critical aspect of convict rights, necessitating proactive administrative action by states well before the date of eligibility. Judicial oversight at the high court level is essential to ensure that executive policies are implemented consistently and effectively, thereby preventing the violation of personal liberty through avoidable extended incarceration.

Result: Directions issued for compliance by states and high courts within specified timelines; matter listed for further reporting.

Table of Content
1. extension of time for state compliance regarding premature release policies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. high courts directed to monitor state remission policy compliance. (Para 8 , 9)
3. mandatory consideration of premature release six months prior to eligibility. (Para 10 , 11)
4. timeline for ministry of home affairs to dispose of pending release requests. (Para 12 , 13)

SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021:

PREMATURE RELEASE- COMPLIANCE WITH EARLIER DIRECTIONS DATED 18.02.2025 AND 25.04.2025

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective States and Ms. Liz Mathew, the learned Amicus Curiae.

2. Learned Amicus, by placing reliance upon the chart, has submitted that five of the States namely Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal are yet to adopt and implement the draft policy and rules including adequate amendments to give effect to the earlier directions issued by this Court.

3. Insofar as the State of Kerala is concerned, a partial compliance is required with respect to furnishing of reasons in the event of rejection of a plea for premature release.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid five states submitted that the needful will be done within a period of two months from the date of this order.

5. Accordingly, as a last and final opportunity, we grant two months’ time to the States of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal to ensure full and complete compliance from the date of this order.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala submitted that an appropriate amendment will have to be introduced in an Act, which is a legislative function, and therefore, more time is required. It is further submitted that all the other compliance have been made, except the one with respect to furnishing of reasons supporting rejection of a plea for premature release.

7. Taking note of the said submission, we grant four months’ time to the State of Kerala, from the date of this order to undertake the said exercise.

8. The learned Amicus has also submitted that it would only be appropriate to request the High Courts to monitor and supervise the compliance of the respective State remission policies, by duly taking note of the earlier orders passed by this Court.

9. We find the said submission as acceptable and accordingly, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to register a suo moto writ petition and thereafter, a Division Bench shall be constituted to monitor and supervise the implementation of the remission and premature release polices of the respective States. The progress in this regard shall be informed by the High Court, by way of an affidavit, before the next date of hearing.

10. We make it clear that the respective States shall comply with the earlier orders which is inclusive of undertaking the exercise of consideration, at least six months prior to the eligibility of a convict so that unwanted time by way of incarceration even after a convict becomes eligible for premature release can very well be avoided.

11. We further make it clear that the aforesaid directions will have to be complied with in letter and spirit in order to get over the practical difficulties, as in some of the cases concurrence of the Ministry of Home Affairs would be required before taking a final decision on the question of premature release.

12. The pending requests of 18 cases, pertaining to the State of Karnataka, Haryana, Manipur and Delhi, are expected to be disposed of by the Ministry of Home Affairs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Registry is directed to transmit the affidavits/records pertaining to compliance reported by each State to the respective High Courts.

PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL APPEALS - COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 08.05.2025

1. We have been informed by Ms. Liz Mathew, learned Amicus that some of the High Courts have not complied with order dated 08.05.2025.

2. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 111231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAM.M. Sundresh, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJIN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAILSUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) No(s). 4/2021 | SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Sundresh, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ
IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) No(s). 4/2021 | SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021