Remission And Commutation Of Sentences
1. Remission of Sentence
Meaning:
Remission is the reduction of the period of sentence without changing its character. It means shortening the term of imprisonment or fine imposed on a convict, often as a reward for good behavior, but the sentence remains unchanged in its nature.
Legal Basis:
In India, remission is generally granted under the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 or the State Prison Rules and also under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 432.
Section 432, CrPC: Empowers the appropriate government to grant a remission of sentence, but the nature of the sentence cannot be altered.
Key Points:
Remission reduces the duration of punishment but does not change the sentence (e.g., life imprisonment does not become a fine).
It is a matter of grace and not a right.
It is generally granted by the executive, not by the judiciary.
2. Commutation of Sentence
Meaning:
Commutation means substituting the sentence with a lighter punishment. For example, converting a death sentence into life imprisonment or replacing imprisonment with a fine.
Legal Basis:
Article 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution provide powers to the President and Governor, respectively, to commute sentences.
Commutation is a form of executive clemency.
Key Points:
Commutation changes the nature of punishment.
It is a power of the executive (President or Governor).
Unlike remission, commutation alters the sentence to a lighter form.
Differences Between Remission and Commutation
| Feature | Remission | Commutation |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Reduction in the period of sentence | Substitution of sentence by lighter punishment |
| Effect | Sentence remains same, only shortened | Sentence changes in character |
| Authority | Executive (State Government) | Executive (President or Governor) |
| Example | Life imprisonment reduced to 15 years | Death sentence changed to life imprisonment |
Case Laws on Remission and Commutation
1. In Re: State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 628)
Facts: The case dealt with the power of remission and whether it can be reviewed by the courts.
Held: The Supreme Court held that remission is a matter of grace and not a matter of right. Courts do not interfere with the remission granted by the executive unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions.
2. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2010 SC 1711)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the remission granted to others in similar circumstances.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that remission is purely an executive function and courts cannot interfere unless there is mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of the law.
3. Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2272)
Facts: The Supreme Court held that commutation of sentence by the President or Governor is a part of their constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161.
Held: Commutation changes the nature of the punishment, and courts cannot interfere with such powers except on limited grounds like mala fide or arbitrariness.
4. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 1 SCC 791
Facts: The petitioner was challenging the refusal of remission.
Held: The Supreme Court held that remission is a privilege and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The decision to grant remission is an administrative one and courts should not interfere.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts: This case dealt primarily with the constitutionality of the death penalty but also discussed commutation powers.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the exercise of executive clemency (including commutation), emphasizing that it should be exercised judiciously and with due consideration.
6. Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015) 7 SCC 792
Facts: The case involved the refusal of the President to commute the death sentence.
Held: The Court held that the President has wide discretion under Article 72, but it should be exercised after due consideration of all aspects. The Court may only intervene if there is arbitrariness or malice.
Summary:
Remission reduces the duration but not the type of sentence.
Commutation changes the type of sentence to a lighter one.
Both are executive powers.
Courts generally do not interfere unless the exercise of these powers is arbitrary, mala fide, or unconstitutional.
Several landmark cases have upheld the principle that remission and commutation are matters of grace, not rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments