Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 12) observed that the convict who was sentenced to fixed-term life imprisonment without remission is entitled to automatic release without applying for remission.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan ordered the release of Sukhdev Yadav, one of the accused convicted for 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case, after noting that he had completed the fixed 20-year terms of imprisonment without remission. The Court said that once the punishment is served by the convict, then there's no need to apply for remission before the Sentence Review Board, as it cannot deny the convict's release after serving the judicial sentencing.

“In the instant case, as already noted, the life imprisonment being twenty years of actual imprisonment was without consideration of remission. 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. Thus, in the instant case, on completion of the twenty years' of actual imprisonment, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellant to seek remission of his sentence on the premise that his sentence is a life imprisonment i.e. till the end of his natural life.”, the court said.

“Consequently, we hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say 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 court added.

Further, the Court rejected the State's argument regarding the mandate to apply for remission to be released after serving the sentence to the Sentence Review Board.

“Such a contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (i) firstly, because, in the instant case, the sentence of life imprisonment has been fixed to be twenty years of actual imprisonment which the appellant herein has completed; (ii) secondly, during the period of twenty years the appellant was not entitled to seek any remission; and (iii) thirdly, on completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment, the appellant is entitled to be released.”, the court said.

“In the instant case, the actual imprisonment of twenty years was admittedly completed by the appellant on 09.03.2025 which was without any remission. If that is so, it would imply that the appellant has completed his period of sentence. In fact, the award of the aforesaid sentence was also confirmed by this Court. On completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment on 09.03.2025, the appellant was entitled to be released. The release of the appellant from jail does 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.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the appeal, directing the Registry to circulate one copy each 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.

"Similarly, a copy of this order shall also be sent by the Registry of this Court 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.”, the court added.

Cause Title: SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWAN VERSUS STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 792

Click here to read/download the judgment