Remission Of Sentence By Executive
What is Remission of Sentence?
Remission means reduction in the period of sentence imposed by the court, granted by the executive authority (typically the Governor or the President).
It is different from pardoning power (complete forgiveness) and commutation (changing sentence type).
Remission reduces the time a convict must spend in jail but does not nullify the conviction or sentence.
It is a discretionary power exercised to reward good behavior, mitigate harshness, or for humanitarian reasons.
Legal Basis of Remission in India
Article 161 of the Constitution of India gives the Governor the power to grant remission of sentences for offenses against state laws.
Article 72 gives the President the power to grant remission for offenses against central laws.
Various State Prison Manuals and Prison Acts also regulate remission.
Remission is typically subject to certain eligibility criteria like good conduct, completing part of the sentence, and nature of the offense.
Difference Between Remission, Commutation, and Pardon
| Power | Authority | Effect | Conviction Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remission | President/Governor | Reduction in sentence time | Conviction remains |
| Commutation | President/Governor | Changes sentence type/severity | Conviction remains |
| Pardon | President/Governor | Forgives offense completely | Conviction erased |
Judicial Approach to Remission
Courts have consistently held that remission is a purely executive function.
Courts can interfere only if remission is granted maliciously, arbitrarily or illegally.
The scope of judicial review is very limited.
The executive must act fairly and within legal limits while granting remission.
Important Case Laws on Remission of Sentence
1. Dharampal v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 65
Facts: Petition challenging the arbitrary denial of remission.
Holding:
Supreme Court held remission is an executive discretion, not judicial.
Court can interfere only if there is malafide, illegality, or arbitrariness.
Mere dissatisfaction with the executive decision is insufficient for judicial intervention.
Significance: Affirmed limited judicial review over remission.
2. Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan (2015) 7 SCC 726
Facts: Petition for remission of sentence in a high-profile case.
Holding:
Court held remission depends on the executive’s satisfaction about good conduct and other factors.
Reiterated that courts should not interfere unless bad faith or illegality is shown.
Significance: Reinforced that remission is a policy matter for the executive.
3. M.C. Chockalingam v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 636
Facts: Contention that remission granted selectively violated equal protection.
Holding:
Court observed remission is a privilege, not a right.
Executive must act reasonably, but equal treatment is not an absolute requirement.
Judicial review limited to checking arbitrariness or malafide.
4. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1969) AIR 1111
Facts: Challenge to remission based on prisoner’s conduct.
Holding:
Remission depends on the conduct of prisoner and executive discretion.
Courts cannot interfere unless power is mala fide or irrational.
5. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 653
Facts: Regarding remission and pardoning powers.
Holding:
Court clarified remission is a distinct power.
Remission cannot be challenged unless grossly unfair or discriminatory.
Executive discretion should be exercised judicially.
6. Shankar Dattatraya Sawant v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 82
Facts: Petition challenging denial of remission on grounds of misconduct.
Holding:
Court said remission depends on prison conduct, but denial must be based on valid reasons.
Arbitrary denial can be challenged.
7. Smt. Anjali Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1989) 3 SCC 603
Facts: Case involving remission policy and discriminatory denial.
Holding:
Remission policies must be fair and non-discriminatory.
Courts may intervene if denial violates fundamental rights or policy norms.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Court | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Dharampal v. Union of India (1989) | Supreme Court | Remission is executive discretion; judicial review limited |
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015) | Supreme Court | Executive’s satisfaction key; courts avoid interference |
| M.C. Chockalingam v. Union of India (1988) | Supreme Court | Remission is privilege, not a right; no absolute equality |
| State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1969) | Supreme Court | Remission depends on prisoner conduct; no court interference unless malafide |
| Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) | Supreme Court | Remission distinct power; challenge only if gross unfairness |
| Shankar D. Sawant v. Union of India (1993) | Supreme Court | Denial of remission must have valid reasons |
| Anjali Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1989) | Supreme Court | Remission policies must be fair and non-discriminatory |
Important Points to Remember
Remission is an executive prerogative aimed at encouraging reformation.
It is usually granted for good behavior, participation in prison activities, or humanitarian grounds.
Courts do not interfere lightly; judicial review limited to preventing abuse or arbitrariness.
Remission does not affect conviction or the legal status of the offense.
Remission can be subject to guidelines or policies, but these cannot violate principles of fairness.
Conclusion
The power of remission is an important tool in the criminal justice system for rewarding good conduct and reducing prison population.
Indian courts uphold the separation of powers, respecting the executive’s discretion in remission.
However, arbitrariness, malafide exercise, or discrimination in remission can be checked by courts.
Remission remains a flexible, discretionary power aimed at balancing justice with mercy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments