Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: SC
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 on the ground that 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 to all citizens, 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. While 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 bench even took exception to the Delhi government's order of March 28 denying remission, and observed: 'How can SRB sit over the judgment of this court. Once a convict has completed a sentence, he is entitled to release...If this is the attitude of the government, then every convict will die in jail even if he has completed the sentence.'
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 and threat to their life.
Besides Sukhdev Yadav, others convicted in the 2002 murder case are Vikas Yadav, son of former parliamentarian DP Yadav, and his cousin Vishal. Katara was killed by the trio over his relationship with Vikash's sister Bharti Yadav. Both Vikas and Vishal were directed to undergo 25 years of sentence without remission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Renukaswamy murder case: Darshan, other accused kept in separate cells; two more accused sent to jail
Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and the other accused, who were re-arrested on Thursday in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case after the Supreme Court cancelled their bail, are being held in the admission barracks in separate cells of Parappana Agrahara Central Prison. The Supreme Court had warned of strict action if any special treatment is given to him after the previous episode. During his earlier stint in the Bengaluru Central Prison last year, a photograph surfaced showing Darshan hobnobbing with rowdy-sheeters Wilson Garden Naga and Srinivas and allegedly getting preferential treatment. The leaked image left prison authorities red-faced and led to Darshan's transfer to Ballari Prison. Southeast division police headed by DCP Sarah Fathiema are investigating the cases that followed the leaked picture. A source told The Hindu that at they are preparing to file charge sheets in the cases. Bengaluru city police followed up the development with surprise raids, uncovering multiple irregularities. Subsequently, the Central Crime Branch (CCB) moved the court and secured orders to transfer the rowdy sheeters to other prisons in the State. These individuals had been detained under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA), the harshest law in the Karnataka Police statutes. Given the history of irregularities at the central prison, officials have now made extensive arrangements to securely house Darshan and his associates. Two more remanded Meanwhile, two more accused in the murder case were remanded in Parappana Agrahara Central Prison on Friday. The police produced Jagadeesh alias Jagga (accused number 6) and Anu Kumar alias Anu (accused number 7) before a judge at his residence in southeastern Bengaluru on Friday, after which they were escorted to the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison. S. Girish, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), West, who is overseeing the developments, told The Hindu that both were arrested in Chitradurga. 'They have been remanded in judicial custody until August 23 and will be produced before the court again on that date,' Mr. Girish said. The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order granting bail to seven of the 17 accused in the murder of Renukaswamy, a Chitradurga resident. Renukaswamy's body was found near a stormwater drain close to Sumanahalli in west Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of 17 people, including Darshan and his friend Pavithra Gowda. Police filed a charge sheet in September, after which Darshan and six others approached the Karnataka High Court and were granted bail on October 30, 2024. Bengaluru police later petitioned the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of their bail. On Thursday, the apex court ruled in favour of Bengaluru police, leading to the re-arrest of all the accused. Pavithra was the first to be detained from her residence in RR Nagar, followed by other accused, including Pradosh, Lakshman, and Nagaraj. Darshan was arrested from his wife's apartment in Hosakerehalli, south Bengaluru, where he had gone to visit his wife and son.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Kerala CM boycotts ‘At Home' called by Guv
Thiruvananthapuram: In a fresh display of the growing rift between Kerala Governor Rajendra V. Arlekar and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, the Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on Friday boycotted the traditional 'At-Home' reception hosted by the Governor at Raj Bhavan as part of Independence Day celebrations. Although invitations had been extended to the Chief Minister and all ministers, none of them attended the evening function. The state government was represented only by Chief Secretary The absence of the political leadership is being widely seen as a public reiteration of the ongoing tensions between the Governor and the state administration. The friction between the two sides has sharpened in recent months over multiple issues, most recently, the controversy surrounding a government circular to observe 'Partition Horrors Remembrance Day' and the disputes over temporary appointments of vice-chancellors in state universities. The issue of the appointment is now under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the state government had sanctioned an additional Rs 15 lakh for the Governor's reception this year, despite the strained relations. The allocation was made under the 'hospitality expenses' head after relaxing earlier cost-cutting directives. The funds were sanctioned based on a request from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor, who sought financial clearance to host prominent citizens and distinguished guests at the Raj Bhavan reception. Sources indicated that the decision to allocate the amount was taken even as the dispute over university appointments was at its peak. The gesture, however, did not translate into political participation, as the Chief Minister and ministers stayed away from the gathering. Traditionally, the Governor's 'At-Home' event is a high-profile social occasion, bringing together senior officials, political leaders, and eminent members of society. The visible absence of the ruling front's top political figures this year underscores the deepening institutional standoff in Kerala's governance. Observers note that while the administrative machinery continues to function, the lack of political engagement between the Governor and the state's elected leadership could complicate decision-making on key matters, including higher education appointments and protocol-related events in the coming months.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court Collegium cannot dictate names to High Court Collegiums: CJI Gavai
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Friday (August 15, 2025) clarified that the powerful Supreme Court Collegium, which he heads, cannot 'dictate' names to High Court Collegiums for judicial appointments. 'Even the Supreme Court Collegium cannot dictate the High Court Collegium to recommend the names,' Chief Justice Gavai said in his Independence Day address at a function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on the court's lawns. Also read: Independence Day highlights The Chief Justice said the High Court Collegiums take the 'first call' on who they would want as their fellow judges. At most, the Chief Justice said, the apex court Collegium could 'recommend' names to its counterparts in the High Courts. The Chief Justice said in a federal judiciary, the Supreme Court and the State High Courts were neither superior nor inferior to each other. The relationship was that of mutual respect. 'As I have always been saying recently, the Supreme Court is not a superior court to the High Court. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court are the constitutional courts. And insofar as the constitutional scheme is concerned, they are neither inferior nor superior to each other. Therefore, the first call has to be taken by the High Court Collegium. We only recommend the names to the High Court Collegium and request them to consider the names. And only after their satisfaction, the names come to the Supreme Court,' the Chief Justice explained. The Chief Justice was responding to a representation made by SCBA president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, to widen the pool of selection for prospective High Court judges, and consider picking legal talent from lawyers practising in the Supreme Court. 'We are aware that lawyers coming from different States perform very well, and their services should be utilised for the various High Courts. I must say that I, along with my senior colleagues, have been successful in getting the names of some of the candidates, who are practicing here, not only recommended to the various High Courts, but also some of them have already been appointed over the years. We are also in the process of recommending some more names,' the Chief Justice informed. The demand from the Bar leader and the response from the Chief Justice on Friday has come at a time when the High Courts are facing 345 vacancies as on August 1. Out of a total working judicial strength of 1,122 judges, there are only 777 judges on the Benches of the 25 State High Courts across the country. Opinion | The Collegium and changes — it may still be early days The delay caused at the government's end to clear recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium has also contributed to vacancies in the High Courts. Selective appointments of names to the High Courts by the government have been a cause of friction with the Collegium. The Supreme Court, while hearing a case of government delay in judicial appointments, had urged the Centre to clear recommendations while noting that vacancies are affecting justice administration. Recent data published by the Supreme Court showed that 29 recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium to State High Courts since November 9, 2022 were pending with the government.
