Rajasthan High Court Rejects Premature Release for 1993 Train Bomb Blast Convicts Under TADA

Case Overview

In a significant ruling on December 15, 2025, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissed a batch of criminal writ petitions filed by several life convicts imprisoned for their roles in the December 1993 serial train bomb blasts. The petitioners, convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), sought premature release after serving over 20 years in Central Jail, Jaipur. The bench, comprising Justices Sudesh Bansal and Bhuvan Goyal, upheld orders from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) dated December 26, 2022, and March 20, 2024, denying their representations for commutation of sentences.

The petitioners included Asfaq Khan, Fazalur Rehman Sufi, Abre Rehmat Ansari, Mohd. Aejaz Akbar, Mohammad Amin, Mohammed Shamsuddin, and Mohammad Afaq, hailing from Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka. They were convicted by the designated TADA court in Ajmer on February 28, 2004, for offenses under TADA, with their life sentences affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 11, 2016 (reported as 2016 (11) SCC 544). The respondents were the State of Rajasthan, prison authorities, the District Magistrate of Jaipur, and the Union of India through the MHA.

The core legal question was whether these convicts, having endured long incarceration and facing health issues, were eligible for premature release under prevailing remission policies, or if TADA convictions imposed an absolute bar.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioners, represented pro-bono by counsel including Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi and Mr. Tek Chand Swami, argued that they had served substantially beyond the 20-year minimum incarceration period outlined in a 2011 MHA letter treating terrorist offenses as a distinct category. They contended that their cases had "matured" for consideration to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 (life and liberty). Counsel further asserted that the MHA's reliance on Rule 9(5) of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, was erroneous, as their convictions predated these rules. They urged application of the policy at the time of conviction (under the 1958 Rules) and cited Supreme Court precedents like Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, emphasizing the right to have remission claims evaluated under relevant guidelines, and Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023) 12 SCC 505, for life convicts' release after prolonged terms.

Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Bharat Vyas (with Mr. Devesh Yadav), Government Advocate Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, and counsel for respondents argued that premature release posed a grave threat to national security and societal peace. They highlighted the heinous nature of TADA offenses, noting an identical bar under Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules and Rule 9(5) of the 2006 Rules, which explicitly exclude TADA convicts from Advisory Board consideration. Reference was made to a 2015 MHA letter (after consultations with CBI and others) rejecting commutation, and 2022 guidelines excluding TADA convicts from special remission during 'Aazadi ka Amrit Mahotsava'. The decisions followed due process, including inputs from prosecuting agencies.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court distinguished the cited precedents, noting that Laxman Naskar affirmed prisoners' rights to evaluation under rules but did not mandate release; here, evaluations had already occurred, precluding further interference. Joseph pertained to IPC offenses (Sections 302 and 392), not TADA's terrorism-specific regime, underscoring the distinction in criteria like societal impact and security threats. The bench emphasized judicial review's limits under Article 226: courts cannot re-appreciate facts or act as appellate authorities unless decisions show non-application of mind, malafides, or arbitrariness—none of which applied.

Key principles invoked included the embargo on TADA remission due to offenses' gravity, as both 1958 and 2006 Rules prohibit consideration. The court rejected claims of policy retroactivity, as the bar remained consistent across rules.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The judgment extracted Rule 9(5) of the 2006 Rules: “Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Advisory Board shall not consider the cases of... (5) Prisoners convicted under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.”

It quoted the MHA's impugned orders: “Terrorist activity is heinous crime and if their premature release is considered, it will be prejudicial to public peace and serious threat to the society and nation, it will also send a wrong message to the criminals. Therefore, premature release of above-mentioned TADA convicts is not recommended.”

The bench observed: “While exercising powers of judicial review... this Court neither can sit as Appellate Authority nor is expected to re-appreciate the entire factual matrix to draw a different conclusion/inference than taken by the competent authorities.”

Court's Final Decision and Implications

The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the MHA's rejections. The court held that decisions were reasoned, jurisdictionally sound, and aligned with law, including consistent TADA bars across remission rules. No interference was warranted.

This ruling reinforces the stringent treatment of terrorism convicts, prioritizing national security over prolonged incarceration claims. It signals to similar cases that TADA life sentences carry near-absolute bars to remission, potentially influencing future petitions nationwide and underscoring policy continuity in prisoner release frameworks.