Supreme Court orders release of convicts who have completed jail term
The Supreme Court had held that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, they shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan has said so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The Registry has been directed to forward the court's judgment to all the Home Secretaries of the States/Union Territories to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for release of such accused/convicts, if not wanted in any other case.
Furthermore, a copy is also to be sent to the Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority for onward transmission to all Member Secretaries of the States/Union Territories Legal Services Authorities for communication to all the Member Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities in the States for the purpose of implementation of this judgment.
A question arose before the Supreme Court to consider whether on completion of the fixed term of sentence, should the accused/convict seek remission of his sentence of “life imprisonment” by making an application to the competent authority for seeking “reduction of his sentence” or is he, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence.
Before the Supreme Court, an appeal was filed by a convict who was found guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He challenged the Delhi High Court's rejection of his petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release on furlough for a period of three weeks.
During the pendency of the instant appeal, the convict completed twenty years of actual incarceration.
Noting that in the instant case the life imprisonment being twenty years of actual imprisonment was without consideration of remission, the top court noted, "Soon after the period of twenty years is completed, in our view, the appellant has to be simply released from jail provided the other sentences run concurrently. The appellant is not under an obligation to make an application seeking remission of his sentence on completion of twenty years. This is simply for the reason that the appellant has completed his twenty years of actual imprisonment and in fact, during the period of twenty years, the appellant was not entitled to any remission.".
Supreme Court further noted that the release of the appellant from jail did not depend upon further consideration as to whether he has to be released or not and as to whether remission has to be granted to him or not by the Sentence Review Board.
"In fact, the Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over what has been judicially determined as the sentence by the High Court which has been affirmed by this Court. There cannot be any further incarceration of the appellant herein from 09.03.2025 onwards. On the other hand, in the instant case, the appellant’s prayer for furlough was refused by the High Court and, thereafter, this Court granted furlough only on 25.06.2025 as he had completed his actual sentence by then, pending consideration of the amended prayer made by the appellant herein on completion of his sentence on 09.03.2025. Therefore, the continuous incarceration of the appellant from 09.03.2025 onwards was illegal. In fact, on 10.03.2025, the appellant ought to have been released from prison as he had completed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court as affirmed by this Court", the supreme court further found.
Case Title: SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWAN vs. STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS
Judgment Date: July 29, 2025
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan