Why the Process of Remitting Sentences of Prisoners Needs Reform

On December 2, 2015, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court revisited the powers of the state Government to grant remission, in Sriharan @Murugan Judgement. RECENT PATNA HIGH COURT ORDER In a recent case, a convict, whose premature release was recommended by the State Sentence Remission Board, did not secure his freedom immediately. but others were kept back for several years thereafter, the order stated-“This clearly shows that there were certain other considerations, surely inappropriate, which works and moves the hands.” The judge had previously ordered the Bihar State Legal Services Authority: “to evolve a system whereby no sooner a convict, who is in custody and mostly unaware of their rights, become entitled to premature release by virtue of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their cases would be automatically referred to the State Sentence Remission Board and then the State Sentence Remission Board would take up the matter immediately eliminating the discretion of the Jail Superintendent to refer the matter at their pleasure.” The order critiqued a practice which has recently evolved under section 432 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the trial Judges also have to be educated in this regard for, unfortunately, they do not appear to be even referring to Section 432 of the Code.” The court has ordered Bihar State Legal Services Authority to draw up a transparent plan through which case of every convict can be expeditiously taken up by the State Sentence Remission Board. Superintendent can grant special remission of up to 30 days a year and on the recommendation of the Superintendent, the Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services can grant special remission of maximum 60 days in a year.. State Government may award remission under section 432 Cr.P.C.