[Editing reqd - public reading pov] [Remission] If opinion of presiding judge gives inadequate reasoning, government can request for fresh consideration: Top Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that if the opinion of the presiding judge, while dealing with an application made for remission, does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) CrPC or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.

A bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose further clarified that the appropriate government should not mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge.

"...an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC. Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise under Section 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors", said the top court.

With this view, the Court went on to allow and appeal filed by Ram Chander under Article 32, and directed Special Judge, Durg to reconsider Chander's application for remission afresh.

Ram Chander was awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life upon being convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

In 2021, Chander completed 16 years of imprisonment without remission and submitted an application for premature release to the respondent under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968.

Special Judge gave his opinion that in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the petitioner.

Upon reviewing the remission request and the opinion of special judge, the Under Secretary of the Law Department opined that Chander cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 433-A CrPC because the presiding judge opined against releasing the petitioner on remission.

Chnader's request was forwarded gain in March, 2022 which came back with the same reply.

The top court noted that while a discretion vested with the government to suspend or remit the sentence, the executive power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in state action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

"...the Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision", added the bench.

Noting that there was a difference of opinion between the High Courts on whether the opinion of the presiding judge is binding on the government, the division bench relied on the case of Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan where the Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted.

Hence, the bench held that the opinion of the presiding judge was not only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission.

"The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission. It is possible then that the procedure under Section 432 (2) would become a mere formality."

In Chander's case, it was found that there was nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors which have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India.

Special Judge, Durg was found to have only referred to the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to grant remission. This opinion was held to be in the teeth of the provisions of Section 432 (2).

Accordingly, while directing for reconsideration of Chander's application for remission, the Top Court ordered thus,

"The Special Judge, Durg must provide his opinion within a month of the date of the receipt of this order. We further direct the State of Chhattisgarh to take a final decision on the petitioner’s application for remission afresh within a month of receiving the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg".

Case Title: Ram Chander vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.