The Supreme Court has said in a judgment that granting premature release to a convict is a “distinct Executive function”, adding that the heinousness of the crime must not dictate the decision on remission.

The court said justice did not permit the permanent incarceration of an individual in the shadow of their worst act. The nature of the offence cannot, therefore, be the sole ground for refusing remission.

“We wish to make it clear that in a constitutional polity governed by the rule of law, the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of the heinousness of the crime. Remission is not an extension of the sentencing process, but a distinct Executive function concerned with the present and future, namely, the prisoner’s conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society,” a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed in a recent judgment.

Reformative ideal

The judgment, authored by Justice Nagarathna, said that to predicate the denial of remission only on the heinous nature of the offence would amount to a “retrospective reaffirmation of guilt”.

“The gravity and heinousness of the offence stand exhausted at the stage of sentencing and the judicial determination of punishment necessarily incorporates these considerations. A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender’s transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The decision on remission must emerge from a holistic assessment of the prisoner and after balancing societal interests with the prisoner’s right to be considered for release on fair and reasonable criteria, she said.

These observations were made by the court while quashing a government decision to refuse remission or premature release of the 2003 Madhumita murder case convict, Rohit Chaturvedi.