Abu Salem Premature Release: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Plea Claiming 25-Year Term Already Completed

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and permitted Salem to file written submissions along with supporting judgments within one week before passing orders.

Appearing for Salem, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra argued that despite a categorical direction of the designated TADA Court, prison authorities had failed to grant his client the full benefit of the period spent in custody as an undertrial.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, during the hearing, sought clarity on the computation of Salem's sentence and asked, "What is the mathematical calculation of the actual period of custody?"

Responding to the query, Malhotra submitted that the issue was not merely about remission under statutory provisions but also about the settled legal position governing earned remission.

He argued that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had already held that remission earned for good conduct in prison forms part of the actual sentence undergone and must be counted while computing the total period of imprisonment.

"I am not even claiming remission under Section 432 CrPC. My case rests only on earned remission for good conduct in jail," Malhotra submitted.

According to the senior counsel, when the benefit of undertrial set-off is combined with earned remission, Salem has already crossed the 25-year ceiling that India had assured Portugal during the extradition proceedings.

"With the benefit of set-off and India's assurance to Portugal that he would not be imprisoned beyond 25 years, he has already undergone 26 years, 9 months and 22 days," Malhotra contended.

The senior counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court had earlier held that powers under Section 432 CrPC could be exercised one month before completion of 25 years' imprisonment. However, he clarified that Salem was not invoking those provisions.

Instead, Malhotra maintained that the case rested entirely on the principle that earned remission for good conduct constitutes part of the actual period of imprisonment, a proposition which, according to him, had also been accepted by the High Court.

Citing precedent, he argued that monthly, quarterly and yearly earned remission, as well as remission granted for performing prison duties, must be treated as part of the actual sentence served.

Malhotra also informed the Bench that Salem had already been granted three years and two months of earned remission for good conduct in prison. He submitted that while other convicts had received the benefit of such remission, Salem had been denied similar treatment because the High Court had held that his sentence was not a fixed-term sentence of 25 years. "The High Court wrongly held that mine was not a fixed-term sentence of 25 years and therefore I was not entitled to remission. That is why remission has not been counted in my case," he argued.

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath asked Salem's counsel whether he wanted a detailed judgment or a simple dismissal.

Malhotra requested the Court to render a reasoned judgment and sought an opportunity to complete his submissions. The Bench, however, observed that it had heard the arguments and directed him to place the remaining submissions in writing within one week.

The senior counsel also urged the Court to at least direct implementation of the TADA Court's order granting undertrial set-off.

After hearing the parties, the Bench reserved its judgment and permitted Salem to file written submissions and supporting precedents within one week before the matter is decided.

Notably in February, the Court had declined to entertain a plea filed by Abu Salem, who sought release in the 1993 Bombay blasts case by claiming that he had completed 25 years of imprisonment in terms of the Court’s 2022 ruling The Bench refused to grant any interim relief and asked Salem to pursue his remedies before the Bombay High Court, which is already seized of the matter.