Karnataka High Court Directs State To Frame Policy On Eligibility To Claim Remission For Good Behaviour, Participating In Prison Activities

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to frame necessary guidelines in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities, under Section 166 (1) (e) of the Prison Manual.

 Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “In order to ensue consideration of remission under Section 166 (i) (e), necessary guidelines will have to be framed by the State Government in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities...Till the Government frames guidelines and take steps either to amend the Prison Manual or frame the Rules, a Circular may be issued in order to consider the claims for remission by the Department which would be in the nature of executive instructions that would mould the field.”

The court directed thus while allowing a petition filed by a prisoner Arun Kumar Alva and set aside the endorsement dated 28.04.2025, issued by the Chief Superintendent of Bengaluru Central Prison, whereby the authority has rejected the request for remission made by the petition on the ground that no work was entrusted in light of the Chief Medical Officer having recorded as regards the petitioner as 'Not fit for work'.

The counsel for petitioner had contended that in practice the authorities do not make distinction between remission if sought under Section 166 (i) (e) or under Section 166 (i) (f) of the Manual. It is further submitted that entry in the register with respect to grounds under Section 166(i)(e) is normally not maintained and accordingly, remission if sought for under Section 166 (i) (e) is not considered.

For context, the claim under clause (e) of Section 166 (i) is on the ground of 'good behavior, discipline and participation in institutional activities', which is in contradistinction with clause (f) which refers to 'performance of work allotted and prescribed standards'.

The court said “Taking note of such submission, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to pass office orders or guidelines to ensure clarity as regards remission when claimed under Section 166 (i) (e). Further clarity is to be made as regards the reference to 'participation in institutional activities' as per Prison Regulations. This would go a long way in ensuring that those who claim remission under Section 166 (i) (e) of the Manual would also be afforded relief.”

The court has also directed Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to ensure instructions are given to the concerned so that entitlement of prisoners for remission whose claim is wrongly rejected, is taken up for reconsideration.

Appearance: Advocate Shriram Adiga for Advocate Sparsh Shetty for Petitioner.

AGA Yashodha K P for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219

Case Title: Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14015 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order