Keshav Nishad: Chhattisgarh HC orders remission and immediate release

Ratio / rule laid down

Remission is not an absolute right, but an eligible convict is entitled to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration of the claim. The authority must address relevant factors, apply the governing remission policy uniformly and give effect to the statutory procedure; a mechanical or inadequately reasoned decision cannot stand.

Why this matters for lawyers

• A remission order must demonstrate consideration of the period of incarceration, jail conduct, possibility of reformation and applicable policy; a bare or formulaic rejection is vulnerable to judicial review.
• Prisoners should place on record custody calculations, conduct reports, the governing policy, recommendations and the statutory opinion obtained under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C.
• The judgment is especially useful where the administration relies on an eligibility objection, such as the alleged non-compliance with Rule 31-Ka(3), without showing that the entire statutory and policy framework was applied.
• The relief here went beyond remand: on the record before it, the Court directed grant of remission and release forthwith, subject to the petitioner not being required in another case and usual jail-rule conditions.
• The decision reinforces the directions in *Amarnath Pandey* that remission matters must be handled fairly, with reasons and without mechanical processing.

Facts

Keshav Nishad was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 190/2011 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, on 25.09.2012 for offences under Sections 302/34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25(1-B)(11) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He had been in custody since 09.06.2011 and had completed more than 18 years of incarceration as on 18.06.2025.

The record indicated satisfactory jail conduct and no adverse remarks. Although remission proceedings were initiated and the Sessions Court furnished its opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenged the competent authority's decision as arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the applicable remission policy and Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Rules, 1968. The State maintained that remission was discretionary and that Rule 31-Ka(3) had not been satisfied.

Issues

• Whether the remission decision adequately applied the statutory framework and the Chhattisgarh remission policy.
• Whether the authority had considered the petitioner's 18-plus years of incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, the recommendations and the possibility of reformation.
• Whether an authority could reject the claim by relying on an eligibility objection without a fair and reasoned assessment of the relevant factors.

Court's Reasoning

The Division Bench treated the power of remission under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as a statutory power that must be exercised according to established principles and the applicable policy. Although remission could not be claimed as an absolute entitlement, the Court held that an eligible convict has a right to fair, objective and non-arbitrary consideration.

The Court found that the impugned action did not adequately address the period already undergone, jail conduct, possibility of reformation or the object of the remission policy. It relied on the principles identified in *Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal*, *Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh* and *State of Haryana v. Jagdish*, and noted the Division Bench's directions in *Amarnath Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh* against mechanical consideration of opinions under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C.

On the undisputed record of prolonged incarceration and satisfactory conduct, the Court held that the impugned action could not be sustained. It therefore quashed the decision and directed grant of remission, followed by release forthwith unless the petitioner was required in another case.

Key Takeaways

• Remission is discretionary, but the decision-making process is subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations and failure to consider relevant material.
• Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. opinions cannot be treated as a mechanical procedural formality; remission authorities must make an informed decision.
• Satisfactory jail conduct and prolonged incarceration are relevant considerations and must be dealt with expressly.
• Reliance on a rule-based eligibility objection does not dispense with the obligation to examine the complete statutory and policy framework.
• Where the record establishes unlawful or inadequate consideration, the Court may direct grant of remission and immediate release rather than merely order reconsideration.

Important Observations

The judgment distinguishes between the absence of an absolute right to remission and the existence of a legally enforceable right to fair consideration. That distinction is important: executive discretion in remission is not immune from Article 21 scrutiny or ordinary administrative-law standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

What Remains Unresolved

The excerpts do not set out the detailed reasoning in the impugned order, the precise operation of Rule 31-Ka(3), or the applicable remission policy's eligibility criteria. The judgment therefore establishes the required standard of consideration but does not determine how that rule or policy would operate on facts materially different from the petitioner's record.

Precedents discussed

• Amarnath Pandey v. State of ChhattisgarhW.P. (PIL) No. 78/2017Referred to

  Remission matters must be decided fairly, reasonably and without mechanical consideration.

• Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal(2000) 7 SCC 626Referred to

  Relevant factors must inform remission or premature-release decisions.

• Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh(2006) 8 SCC 161Referred to

  Remission powers are reviewable for arbitrariness and irrelevant considerations.

• State of Haryana v. Jagdish(2010) 4 SCC 216Referred to

  The applicable remission policy must be applied uniformly.

Source judgment: Keshav Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh