‘Sovereign Assurance Does Not Alter Life Sentence’: SC Rejects Abu Salem’s Plea For Early Release

The Supreme Court on September 10 dismissed a plea by extradited gangster Abu Salem seeking premature release, holding that the sovereign assurance given by the Union Government to Portugal to not keep him imprisoned for more than 25 years did not convert his life imprisonment sentence in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case into a fixed-term sentence.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the 25-year stipulation was a consequence of the sovereign assurance extended to the Government of Portugal in connection with Salem’s extradition. It did not alter the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the competent courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Why did the Supreme Court reject Abu Salem’s claim for jail-earned remission?

Court rejected Salem’s argument that the remission he had earned while in jail should be added to the 25-year period, allowing him to seek release before completing the stipulated period.

“Consequently, the jail-earned remission cannot be notionally added to the period of incarceration so as to further advance the appellant’s release. To permit such a course would, in effect, confer a benefit over and above the consequence already flowing from the sovereign assurance, notwithstanding that the sentence itself remains one of life imprisonment,” the Bench said.

Salem’s counsel had submitted that he was entitled to the benefit of jail-earned remission of 3 years, 6 months and 2 days.

The counsel also argued that the Bombay High Court had erred in holding that Salem was not entitled to jail-earned remission because the sentence imposed on him was one of life imprisonment and not a fixed-term sentence.

“We are unable to accept this contention, primarily for two reasons,” the Bench said.

Court first pointed out that its July 11, 2022 judgment in the Mumbai blasts case had not altered the two life sentences imposed upon Salem by judgments dated February 25, 2015 and September 7, 2017.

“The said judgment merely reaffirmed the sovereign assurance extended by the Union Government to the Government of Portugal in connection with the appellant’s extradition to India for the purpose of trial. The assurance did not have the effect of converting or modifying the sentences imposed by the competent courts,” the Bench said.

What did the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment actually mean?

The court said its 2022 judgment had expressly declined to interfere with the sentences awarded by the TADA Court or to confer upon Salem any special dispensation by way of commutation or restriction of those sentences.

The Bench said the distinction was important because the sovereign assurance was an act of the Executive, while the sentence imposed by the TADA Court was an exercise of judicial power.

“The approach adopted by this court is firmly rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The sovereign assurance extended by the Union Government to the Government of Portugal was an act of the Executive in the context of the appellant’s extradition, whereas the sentence imposed by the TADA Court was an exercise of judicial power, determining the punishment commensurate with the offences of which the appellant stood convicted,” the Bench said.

Court also emphasised that the nature and extent of punishment are governed by the Legislature, its application to the facts of a particular case falls within the domain of the Judiciary, while the Executive exercises powers relating to remission, commutation or release as conferred upon it by law.

“The Executive, in turn, exercises such powers in relation to remission, commutation or release as are conferred upon it by law,” the Bench said.

Against this background, Court said its 2022 judgment only recognised the sovereign assurance and did not change Salem’s life sentence into a 25-year sentence.

“This court did not convert the appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment into a sentence of 25 years. It merely recognised the sovereign assurance given by the Union Government and directed that, upon completion of 25 years, the Executive would be required to consider the exercise of its powers under Article 72 of the Constitution or, as the case may be, Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC,” the Bench said.

Court therefore held that the 25-year stipulation could not be treated as the sentence imposed on Salem.

“We are, therefore, unable to appreciate how the appellant can claim the benefit of “jail-earned remission” when the sentence imposed upon him continues to be one of life imprisonment. The stipulation regarding consideration of his release upon completion of 25 years cannot be construed to mean that the appellant was sentenced to a term of 25 years,” the Bench said.

Court held that the assurance only required the Central Government to consider exercising its powers after Salem completed the stipulated period. It did not alter the nature or duration of the life sentence imposed by the TADA Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Bench therefore held that the Bombay High Court was justified in declining to extend the benefit of jail-earned remission to Salem because no fixed-term sentence had been imposed upon him.

How long has Abu Salem been in custody?

The Supreme Court also rejected Salem’s claim that he had completed 26 years, 9 months and 22 days of incarceration, finding that the claim was based on an inconsistent computation.

“On the computation placed before us, we are unable to hold that he has and affirm the view expressed by the High Court on this aspect,” the Bench said.

Court also referred to an affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services. The affidavit contained a calculation chart indicating January 31, 2046 as the probable date of Salem’s release.

Court noted that Salem had been placed in the category of prisoners sentenced to 50 years.

Why did earlier Supreme Court judgments on remission not help Salem?

The Bench rejected Salem’s reliance on Yovehel v. State of Maharashtra (2020), Union of India v. V Sriharan @ Murugan (2016) and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008).

It said none of those cases involved a sovereign assurance under which the Executive had undertaken, in the context of extradition, that a prisoner would not be detained beyond a stipulated period.

“The principle governing the computation of remission in those cases cannot, therefore, be mechanically applied to the present case, where the appellant’s sentence remains one of life imprisonment and the 25-year stipulation operates by virtue of the sovereign assurance,” the Bench said.

Court stressed that a precedent cannot be applied divorced from the factual and statutory setting in which it was rendered. The decisions relied upon by Salem, therefore, did not advance his case.

The Supreme Court consequently found no infirmity in the April 15, 2026 judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed Salem’s writ petition seeking his release through habeas corpus and mandamus.

What was the sovereign assurance given to Portugal?

On December 17, 2002, a solemn sovereign assurance was conveyed to the Government of Portugal through then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani.

Under the assurance, the Government of India undertook to exercise its powers under Indian law to ensure that, upon Salem’s extradition to India for trial, he would neither be subjected to the death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years.

The Ministry of Justice, Portugal, permitted his extradition by an order dated March 29, 2003.

Salem’s custody was handed over to the Indian authorities on November 10, 2005, and he was extradited to India on November 11, 2005.

Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta 

Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026