Life Sentence of 21 Years Does Not Bar Remission Unless Explicitly Restricted: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking remission for three detenues serving a fixed 21-year sentence imposed after the commutation of their original death penalties. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their remission applications under Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, arguing that the authorities had erroneously treated sentences exceeding 20 years as ineligible for remission.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that “The said modified sentence does not impose a condition that the detenue shall not be released on parole or that no remission can be awarded to the detenues. When the judgment is silent on that, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit thereof would have to be provided to the detenue and as such, merely because there is a sentence of 21 years, it cannot be said that detenue will not be entitled for remission due to the sentence being for a fixed period in excess of 20 years.”

Advocate Umme Salma appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Sharad V. Magadum represented the State.

Background

The petition was filed by three detenues whose death sentences had been commuted to fixed 21-year terms by a subsequent judicial order. Following the modification, the detenues applied for remission under Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.

The authorities, however, rejected their applications, stating that prisoners serving a fixed-term sentence exceeding 20 years were ineligible for remission. The petitioners approached the High Court challenging this decision, arguing that the rejection was contrary to both the sentencing order and the remission framework under the prison rules.

Court’s Observations

The Karnataka High Court examined Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, which governs remission. It clarified that while remission is not an automatic right, it serves as an incentive for good behaviour, discipline, and participation in institutional activities. The rule allows the State Government, the Director General of Prisons, or the Superintendent to grant remission based on the prisoner’s conduct, but such powers must be exercised judiciously.

The Court emphasised that there is no legal embargo on considering remission for prisoners serving fixed terms exceeding 20 years. Sentences beyond this duration are treated as equivalent to life imprisonment for administrative purposes, but that equivalence does not bar the consideration of remission applications.

The bench further noted that in the present case, the original death sentences imposed on the detenues had been commuted to fixed 21-year terms by a subsequent judgment. Since the modified sentencing order was silent on parole or remission, the Court held that authorities cannot presume ineligibility simply based on the length of the term. It concluded that unless the judgment explicitly denies benefits like remission or premature release, such entitlements must be evaluated in line with existing remission policies.

The Court directed the prison to reconsider the remission applications independently of earlier rejections. It clarified that the detenues’ conduct during incarceration, which was recorded as satisfactory, should be assessed along with other relevant criteria under Chapter 13 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.

Conclusion

Allowing the petition, the Karnataka High Court directed the authorities to reconsider the detenues’ remission applications within two weeks.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Deepa Angadi v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:10727)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Umme Salma

Respondents: Advocate Sharad V. Magadum

Click here to read/download Judgment