States and Union Territories with a policy for the permanent remission of convicts must consider their early release even without a request from the prisoners or their family, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that if a remission policy is in place, governments cannot limit relief to only those who apply under the policy.

“Such conduct on the part of the states will be discriminatory and arbitrary and amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the bench said.

“The power under Section 432(1) must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner,” the court added. “Therefore, whenever there is a policy for consideration of cases for permanent remission, it becomes an obligation of the State to consider cases of every eligible convict under the policy.”

Section 432(1) of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure grants the government the authority to suspend or reduce a convicted person’s sentence.

The court also directed states and Union Territories that do not have a remission policy to frame one within two months.

The judgement came in a suo motu case on the policy strategy for granting bail. It addressed the remission policy of states, focusing on its implementation even without a convict’s application and whether conditions can be imposed when granting remission, Bar and Bench reported.

The court ruled that states must create a list of life convicts and others eligible for premature release. This list should be regularly submitted by prison superintendents to the government for consideration of their remission.

The bench acknowledged that reasonable conditions can be imposed when granting remission, but clarified that these conditions must be “capable of being complied with”.

“The conditions cannot be vague,” the judgement said. “The conditions cannot be oppressive. When a convict is released by granting relief of permanent remission, it is necessary to ensure that he is rehabilitated in society.”

The judgement stated that when determining terms and conditions for remission, factors such as the nature of the crime, its motive, the convict’s criminal history and public safety should be considered.

The court directed that if remission is cancelled, brief reasons must be provided for the decision, since it takes away the liberty granted to the convicts. Further, the convict must receive a show cause notice outlining the grounds for cancellation and be given a chance to submit a reply.

“If this is not read into the statute, the convict will not be in a position to defend the proceedings,” the judgement said.

The court said that a government’s decision to grant or reject remission must be communicated to the convict.

“If the prayer is refused, while providing a copy of the order to the convict, he must be informed that he has a right to challenge the order,” the court said.

The court ruled that a copy of the rejection order be promptly given to the secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to ensure legal aid is provided to the convict for challenging the decision.

It also directed district legal services authorities to track convicts’ eligibility for premature release and state authorities to set up a portal for real-time data updates.