SUPREME COURT: LIFE CONVICT WHO SERVES FIXED TERM MUST BE RELEASED WITHOUT SEEKING REMISSION:

On August 12, the Supreme Court held that a convict sentenced to a fixed term of life imprisonment without the benefit of remission is entitled to automatic release upon completion of that term, without the need to apply for remission before any authority. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan made the ruling while ordering the release of Sukhdev Yadav, convicted in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, after noting that he had completed his 20-year fixed term without remission.

The Court made it clear that once the judicially imposed sentence has been fully served, there is no requirement for the convict to seek further approval from the Sentence Review Board. The Bench observed that in Yadav’s case, the sentence of life imprisonment had been judicially fixed at 20 years of actual imprisonment, without consideration of remission. Since that period had been completed, and all sentences were running concurrently, the appellant was “simply to be released” from custody.

It further held that the obligation to apply for remission does not arise in such cases because the convict was not entitled to any remission during the fixed term, and therefore, upon completion of the sentence, there is nothing left to remit. The Court emphasised that keeping a convict in prison beyond the completed term would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The bench laid down a broader principle that in all cases where a convict has served the entirety of their court-imposed term of imprisonment, they must be released immediately unless they are required in another case. This, the judges said, is a constitutional mandate to prevent unlawful detention.

Rejecting the State’s contention that Yadav should have applied for remission to the Sentence Review Board, the Court gave three reasons: first, the sentence was judicially fixed at 20 years of actual imprisonment, which had already been served; second, during those 20 years, the appellant was not entitled to seek remission; and third, completion of the full term entitles the convict to immediate release.

The Court noted that Yadav’s actual term of 20 years ended on March 9, 2025, without any remission. As the sentence had been confirmed by the Supreme Court itself, further incarceration beyond that date was impermissible. The Bench added that the Sentence Review Board could not “sit in judgment” over a sentence already determined by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Any continued detention after completion of the sentence would be unlawful.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court directed the Registry to send copies of the order to all State and Union Territory Home Secretaries to identify convicts who have remained in prison beyond their sentence terms and to ensure their release if they are not wanted in other cases. It also ordered a copy to be sent to the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority for transmission to all State and District Legal Services Authorities to facilitate implementation of the ruling.