Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: Supreme Court
The order came in a petition filed by Sukhdev Yadav, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, whose life term was converted to a fixed term sentence of 20 years, without any remission, by the top court in October 2016. After the sentence period ended on March 9, Yadav's application for remission was rejected by the Delhi government. He then approached the apex court, which first granted furlough on June 26 and ordered his release on July 29.
In a detailed judgment giving reasons for releasing Yadav, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan said, 'On completion of 20 years of sentence, it was wholly unnecessary to seek remission as during the period of 20 years, he was not entitled to any remission.'
'From March 9, 2025 (when he completed the 20-year sentence), he cannot be kept in jail. His continuous incarceration after March 9 till June 25 (when he was released on furlough) was illegal,' the bench held.
Earlier, the Delhi government had objected to Yadav's plea for release, stating that the 20-year sentence was stipulated within the life term as a period within which he was not entitled to remission. After he had undergone this period, the Sentence Review Board (SRB), which considers remission of prisoners, refused him 'premature release' on March 28 stating he has 'potential to commit crime'.
The top court noticed the facts of the case and felt concerned whether such a legal interpretation was coming in the way of release of other similarly situated convicts. 'This court has held that prisoners are languishing behind bars even after being acquitted or on completion of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for their release, if not wanted in any other case,' the bench ordered.
Underlining the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees life and liberty, the bench added: '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.'
It further directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to communicate the list of such prisoners to the state and district legal services authority for implementation of the judgment.
The bench further clarified that when a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment with an accompanying condition that such a convict shall not be entitled to remission for a 20-year period, they ought to be released on completion of the said term. However, this will be subject to the condition that other punishments for the accompanying offences run concurrently and the convict is not wanted in any other case.
In such a scenario, the court held that the convict will not be required to apply for remission as the life sentence has been replaced with a sentence of 20 years without remission.
Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that with the October 2016 ruling by the top court, Yadav cannot be allowed to remain in jail beyond completion of the fixed-term sentence. Releasing Yadav on July 29, the court had said: 'Once the court has quantified a sentence without remission for 20 years, there is no sentence beyond 20 years.'
The complainant in the case Nilam Katara, the mother of Nitish Katara, had also argued and opposed Yadav's release claiming that the witnesses have been living in fear.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Quota anomalies' in 69K teachers' recruitment in UP: Candidates protest outside minister's place
Alleging reservation scam in 19,000 posts in 69,000 assistant teacher recruitment, a large number of candidates from reserved categories staged a protest outside basic education minister Sandeep Singh's residence at Mall Avenue here on Monday. Policemen taking away one of the protestors in Lucknow on August 18. (HT photo) From there, police sent them to Eco Garden in vehicles. The education directorate at Nishatganj was turned into a fortress in the wake of the protest. 'We have not yet got justice in this recruitment,' the protesters claimed. They said if the government does not take the initiative for hearing in the Supreme Court and keeps getting dates after dates from the apex court, they will stage sit-in protests every day in Lucknow and also gherao the residences of BJP leaders. Talks were held with additional chief secretary, basic education, Deepak Kumar, on the issue but nothing came out of it, said one of the protesters Dhananjay Gupta. On the call of Pichda Dalit Samyukta Morcha's state president Sushil Kashyap and state patron Bhaskar Singh, the 'aggrieved' candidates claimed to have sent hundreds of letters to the Chief Justice of India in which it was, as per the protestors, clearly stated that for the last 12 months the plaint of the candidates was not being heard in the Supreme Court and dates were being given one after the other due to which they were very upset. The protesters said in such a situation, the apex court should start hearing their case so that they can get justice. Sushil Kashyap and Bhaskar Singh alleged that in the said recruitment, OBC category has been given only 3.86% reservation instead of 27%, SC category has been given only 16.2% reservation instead of 21% and thus in this recruitment, Basic Education Rules 1981 and Reservation Rules 1994 have been violated. They also alleged that the original selection of this recruitment was not being made public for the last 5 years despite the order of a division bench of the Allahabad high court issued on August 13. 2024, 'which shows that there has been a huge reservation scam in the said recruitment'. Basic education department officials said the matter was pending in the court and they will abide by the order of the Supreme Court.
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Odisha to begin SIR from September, wrap it up by January 7: Election official
Odisha will start working on the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls from next month, the first such exercise in the state after 2002, the state's chief electoral officer R Sant Gopalan said on Monday. The SIR will start from next month and the revsied list would be out in January, Odisha chief electoral officer R Sant Gopalan said Gopalan said the final voter list would be published on January 7 next year. 'The SIR will start from next month and the revsied list would be out in January. The revised list can be delayed as per ECI directions,' he said. The state's top election official also said the number of polling booths across the state would be increased from 38,000 to 45,000. Since 2002 when the last such exercise was carried out, the electoral rolls have undergone annual summary revisions, which do not involve door-to-door verification. The upcoming SIR could be a crucial effort to ensure that no eligible voter is left out, and no ineligible person remains on the rolls, he said. The SIR process includes house-to-house visits, verification of voter eligibility, rationalisation of polling stations and strengthening of the voter list to eliminate inaccuracies. Monday's announcement comes against the backdrop of a continuing controversy in Bihar over the exercise ahead of state elections later this year. The SIR in Bihar, also undertaken state-wide for the first time in two decades, has excluded nearly 6.5 million names from the draft roll published on August 1. The exercise was also challenged in the Supreme Court in July. On August 14, the top court directed EC to publish details of about 6.5 million voters deleted during the SIR. The court also stressed that transparency was essential and set August 19 as the deadline for compliance, with a review due on August 22. According to the 2024 list of voters, Odisha has 33.2 million voters, including 16.8 million men and 16.3 million women. Among the voters, there are 680,000 senior citizens, 9,060 people, aged over 100 years, 457,000 persons with disabilities (PwD) voters, 754,000 voters aged 18-19 years and 3,380 third gender voters. According to EC directions, people whose names were not recorded in the 2002 electoral roll will have to submit documents prescribed by the Commission to establish their eligibility for voter enrolment. In the Bihar case, the Supreme Court told EC to accept Aadhaar card as well. The state government has already instructed all departments and district collectors to ensure that no post designated as district election officer (DEO), electoral registration officer (ERO), or assistant electoral registration officer (AERO) is vacant during the revision period. No transfers of officers holding these posts would be made without the prior approval of the Election Commission. Asked about the objections raised by BJD on polling number mismatch in 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly polls, Sant Gopalan said replies have already been given to objections raised by the Congress and the BJD. 'Let us not shake public trust. Baseless allegations could undermine the credibility of the Election Commission,' he said, adding that detailed clarifications were provided twice to BJD on their allegations.
The Wire
27 minutes ago
- The Wire
Assam Police Invoke Sedition Law in Second Case Against The Wire, Naming Varadarajan, Karan Thapar
Law The summons was issued on the very day the Supreme Court granted protection to The Wire's journalists from any coercive action in relation to an FIR filed in the state on July 11 and issued notice on the news platform's writ challenging the vires of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (R-L) Siddharth Varadarajan, Karan Thapar and Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. Photos: File/PTI New Delhi: On August 12, 2025 – the day the Supreme Court issued notice on The Wire 's petition challenging the constitutionality of the new sedition law and protected its journalists, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan from any 'coercive action' by Assam Police in a case filed in Morigaon in July – the Guwahati Crime Branch summoned Varadarajan and senior journalist Karan Thapar in a fresh 'sedition' FIR filed by the state police. The summons for Varadarajan, issued by police inspector Soumarjyoti Ray under section S.35(3), BNSS, referred to an FIR (03/2025) registered at the Crime Branch, Panganj, Guwahati, under sections 152, 196, 197(1)(D)/3(6), 353, 45 and 61. However, the FIR date was not mentioned, no details of the alleged offence were provided and a copy of the FIR was not included – as the police are legally obliged to do while serving a summons under this section of the BNSS. The summons was received at The Wire 's office here on August 14. Today (August 18), an identical summons was received in the name of Thapar, for the same FIR. Claiming that 'it is revealed that there are reasonable grounds to question you to ascertain the facts and circumstances from you, in relation to the present investigation,' both Varadarajan and Thapar have been directed to appear at the Crime Branch office in Panbazaar, Guwahati on Friday, August 22. 'Failure to attend/ comply with the terms of this Notice can render you liable for arrest', the summons adds. While the FIR registered against Varadarajan in Morigaon on July 11, 2025, pertains to a complaint filed by a BJP officeholder over a story published in The Wire on June 28, 2025 (IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attache), it is not apparent what article or video the Crime Branch FIR relates to. Even in the Morigaon case, as The Wire 's counsel Nitya Ramakrishan informed the Supreme Court, the FIR was kept a secret and it was only through well-placed sources that it became possible to learn of the complaint, the date of the FIR, and the criminal sections invoked. It was on this basis that The Wire approached the court to challenge the vires of Section 152 of BNS and the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice. Section 152 of BNS ('Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India') is the rebranded version of India's earlier sedition provision (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, Section) that the apex court stayed in 2022. Varadarajan and Thapar have responded to the summons by drawing attention to the requirement – laid down by the Supreme Court – for FIRs to be made public and copies given to the accused. They have also noted a Karnataka high court judgment which says that a police summons without a copy of the FIR accompanying it is invalid. The Wire 's legal representatives in Guwahati say there is no trace of the FIR in the magistrate's court. Reporters in Assam have also failed to get the police in Guwahati to provide any details about the new case. In their response to the summons, both Varadarajan and Thapar have said they are ready and willing to cooperate with any investigation, but the preconditions laid down by India's constitutional courts have to be fulfilled in any case. Please note, their reply says, that they "cannot be conceivably summoned and expected to answer questions on a matter, to ascertain the 'facts and circumstances in relation to the present investigation', without being supplied with the contents of the FIR to which your investigation pertains." The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
