Convict Entitled To Seek Remission Even If Sentence Exceeds 20 Years, Unless Order Specifically Bars Release: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission. In doing so, the court held that even order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled...
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission.
In doing so, the court held that even order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled to remission unless the sentence makes it clear that the detainee shall not be entitled to premature release or remission or parole.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by three convicts who have been sentenced to 21 years ' imprisonment.
He said: “Though initially the sentence was one of death, subsequently, on an appeal, the same was modified to imprisonment for 21 years. The said modified sentence does not impose a condition that the detenue shall not be released on parole or that no remission can be awarded to the detenues.When the judgment is silent on that, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit thereof would have to be provided to the detenue and as such, merely because there is a sentence of 21 years, it cannot be said that detenue will not be entitled for remission due to the sentence being for a fixed period in excess of 20 years”.
The court was hearing a plea filed by a relative of the convicts. Their primary contention was that an application for remission of the sentence of the three convicts was rejected on the ground that remission is not a matter of right to any prisoner under sub-rule (v) of Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.
Further, merely because an accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life of 20 years or more would not disentitle such detenue from remission when the order of sentence does not make that the condition or part of the sentence.
The government advocate opposed the plea, submitting that remission under Section 63 (2) (e) of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, is not a matter of right, and it is left to the total discretion of the Respondent authorities and exercising such discretion, the application for remission filed has been rejected.
Further, the sentence of imprisonment in the present matter is for a specific term of 21 years, exceeding 20 years, being the term of life imprisonment, and as such, the petitioner would not be entitled to remission of the sentence.
The high court noted that under Rule 164, there is no particular embargo that if a sentence is for 20 years or more or even for a particular period more than 20 years, the detenue would not be entitled for remission.
It said “In fact, what sub-rule (v) of Rule 164 indicates is only that remission is not a matter of right for any prisoner, thereby implying that remission can be granted at the discretion of the State Government or the Director General of Prisons or the Chief Superintendent or the Superintendent of Prison in terms of sub rule (ii) of Rule 164. Needless to say, the said discretion would have to be exercised judiciously in a proper manner.”
Referring to sub-rule (1) of Rule 164, the court said that the remission system aims at the "reformation of prisoners".
"Remission is held out as a carrot to a prisoner to behave properly so that he may be released earlier than the sentence which has been," it said.
It said that when such a promise is held out in terms of Rule 164, then the "State would have to comply" with the promise.
It said that if the detenue/prisoner were to behave in a proper, disciplined manner with good conduct, the time incarcerated would have to taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of remission in terms of Chapter 13 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.
Holding that there is "no particular embargo" under sub-rule (v) of Rule 164 for grant of remission, the court directed Respondents to reconsider the applications of the detenues, and if found qualified, grant remission to the detenues.
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Appearance: Advocates Umme Salma, Sirajuddin Ahmed for Petitioners.
AGA Sharad V Magadum for Respondents.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024