In order to ensure clarity as regards remission claimed under Section 166 (i) (e) of the Karnataka Prison Manual 2021, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to frame guidelines to bring transparency regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behavior, discipline and participation in institutional activities.

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the endorsement issued by the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, rejecting his claim for remission/ premature release. The request for remission was rejected on the ground that no work was entrusted, and the Chief Medical Officer had recorded that the petitioner was 'Not fit for work'.

The Single Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav held, “In order to ensue consideration of remission under Section 166 (i) (e), necessary guidelines will have to be framed by the State Government in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behavior, discipline and participation in institutional activities.”

Advocate Shriram Adiga represented the Petitioner while AGA Yashodha K.P. represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that remission under Section 166 (i) (e) of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 is under the category of good behavior, discipline and participation in institutional activities as per the prison regulations and the ground made out as 'Not fit for work' under 166 (i) (e) of the Manual relates to remission on the ground of performance of work allotted and prescribed as per the prescribed standards.

It was the case of the Respondents that the question of entrusting the work for those who are undergoing simple imprisonment may not arise, as work is allotted to those undergoing rigorous imprisonment.

Reasoning

The Bench made it clear that the claim under Section 166 (i) (e) and (f) of the Manual are separate and distinct. “The claim under clause (e) of Section 166 (i) is on the ground of 'good behavior, discipline and participation in institutional activities', which is in contradistinction with clause (f) which refers to 'performance of work allotted and prescribed standards'”, it said.

Considering that the petitioner completed the sentence even without remission on June 14, 2025, the Bench set aside the endorsement on the ground that the endorsement passed was contrary to Section 166 (i) (e) of the Prison Manual. The Bench also took note of the petitioner’s submission that in practice the authorities do not make a distinction between remission if sought under Section 166 (i) (e) or Section 166 (i) (f) of the Manual and remission if sought for under Section 166 (i) (e) is not considered.

In light of such contention, the Bench ordered, “...it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to pass office orders or guidelines to ensure clarity as regards remission when claimed under Section 166 (i) (e). Further clarity is to be made as regards the reference to 'participation in institutional activities' as per Prison Regulations. This would go a long way in ensuring that those who claim remission under Section 166 (i) (e) of the Manual would also be afforded relief.”

The Bench thus ordered that till the Government frames guidelines and takes steps either to amend the Prison Manual or frame the Rules, a Circular may be issued in order to consider the claims for remission by the Department, which would be in the nature of executive instructions that would mold the field.

Cause Title: Arun Kumar Alva v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:19758)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Shriram Adiga, Sparsh Shetty

Respondent: AGA Yashodha K.P.

Click here to read/download Order




Karnataka High CourtJustice S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.