Grant Of Remission - Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons While Giving Opinion Under Section 433(2) CrPC: SC
📜 Statutory Background: Section 433(2) CrPC
🔹 Section 433 CrPC – Power to Commute Sentence
This provision allows the appropriate government to commute certain sentences:
Death sentence → life imprisonment
Life imprisonment → imprisonment up to 14 years or less
Rigorous imprisonment → simple imprisonment
Any imprisonment → fine
🔹 Section 433-A CrPC
Restricts premature release in cases where life imprisonment is awarded for offences punishable with death, mandating that at least 14 years of actual imprisonment be served.
🔹 Section 432 CrPC – Deals with remission and suspension of sentences.
🔹 Section 433(2) CrPC – Critical for this discussion:
“If in any case the appropriate Government considers it expedient to commute any sentence, it shall, in case of a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life, require the opinion of the presiding judge of the court which convicted the offender as to whether the sentence should be commuted.”
🔍 This provision requires consultation with the presiding judge before granting remission or commutation of life imprisonment.
⚖️ Supreme Court’s Position: Judge Must Give Adequate Reasons
✅ Key Case: Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Others (2016) 7 SCC 1
The Constitution Bench interpreted Section 433(2) and emphasized that:
The presiding judge’s opinion is not a mere formality.
The judge must apply judicial mind and provide reasons for the opinion on remission.
The opinion should be based on the gravity of the offence, conduct of the prisoner, reformative prospects, and interest of society.
🧑⚖️ Recent Clarification by Supreme Court: Adequate Reasons Required
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
The opinion of the presiding judge under Section 433(2) CrPC is vital when the government is considering remission of a life sentence.
The judge must give adequate and detailed reasons to support the recommendation (whether in favour or against remission).
This opinion must reflect judicial reasoning, not personal or emotional views.
Lack of adequate reasoning can render the remission decision legally vulnerable or flawed.
📌 Why This Requirement Matters
Ensures judicial check on executive discretion.
Brings transparency and accountability to remission decisions.
Protects public interest and victim rights by evaluating:
Nature of the offence
Severity of the sentence
Prisoner's conduct, remorse, and reformation
Avoids arbitrary exercise of mercy by the executive.
🔍 Case Law Supporting This Principle
1. Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1
As mentioned, the Court ruled that judge’s opinion under Section 433(2) must not be mechanical.
Emphasized the constitutional balance between judiciary and executive in sentence remission.
2. Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595
Laid down five parameters to consider remission:
Nature of the offence
Circumstances of the crime
Prior criminal record
Conduct in prison
Likelihood of committing crime again
These must guide both the presiding judge and the executive in remission matters.
3. State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216
Reaffirmed that the opinion under Section 433(2) must be given judicially and supported by material.
📝 Summary
Under Section 433(2) CrPC, the government must consult the presiding judge before granting remission or commutation of life imprisonment.
The judge’s opinion must contain adequate, reasoned analysis, based on legal, moral, and rehabilitative considerations.
The Supreme Court has clearly held that this is not a procedural formality, but a substantive safeguard ensuring that decisions of remission are fair, just, and in public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments