Has the Supreme Court Given a Final Chance to Five States for Remission Policy Implementation?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has issued a crucial ultimatum to five states regarding their policies on convict release. This decision emphasizes the need for compliance and highlights the ongoing issues within the Indian judicial system concerning bail and remission. Explore how this ruling could reshape the landscape of criminal justice in India.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court grants two-month deadline for states to implement remission policies.
- Focus on timely consideration of remission cases to prevent unnecessary incarceration.
- High Courts will oversee the implementation process.
- Legislative amendments required for Kerala.
- Importance of compliance with judicial directives.
New Delhi, Nov 13 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has provided a final and last chance to five states—Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—to implement their premature release policies for convicts. A bench led by Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, while addressing the suo motu case titled 'In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail', which investigates systemic issues regarding bail and remission policies nationwide, has provided a two-month deadline for the defaulting states to ensure complete compliance with previous directives.
The court noted the comments made by Amicus Curiae Liz Mathew, stating that the five states have not yet adopted and executed the draft remission policy and necessary amendments needed to adhere to earlier rulings.
During the proceedings, the Justice Sundresh-led bench acknowledged the state governments' claims that they would finalize the necessary actions within the specified two months.
Accepting this request for time, the court remarked: “Thus, we provide a last and final opportunity of two months for the states of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal to ensure comprehensive compliance from the date of this ruling.”
The Supreme Court also recognized Kerala’s partial compliance and allotted four months for legislative changes to require justification when denying premature release requests.
Furthermore, it emphasized the importance of prompt consideration of remission cases, suggesting state governments should initiate this process “at least six months before a convict becomes eligible to prevent unnecessary incarceration after eligibility for premature release is achieved.”
Importantly, the Supreme Court accepted the amicus’ recommendation for High Courts to oversee the implementation process. “We urge the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition. Subsequently, a Division Bench should be formed to monitor and supervise the implementation of remission and premature release policies of the respective states,” it stated.
Point of View
I recognize the Supreme Court's decision as a pivotal moment in addressing the systemic issues plaguing our criminal justice system. This ruling not only holds states accountable but also underscores the importance of timely justice. It is crucial that we support efforts for reform in bail and remission policies, ensuring that justice is served promptly and fairly, reflecting the nation's commitment to legal integrity.
NationPress
13/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the five states?
The Supreme Court granted a final opportunity to five states to fully implement their policies on the premature release of convicts within two months.
Which states are affected by this ruling?
The states affected by this ruling are Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
What is the significance of this ruling?
This ruling highlights the ongoing issues within the Indian criminal justice system regarding bail and remission policies, emphasizing the need for states to comply with established directives.
What is expected from Kerala in response to this ruling?
Kerala has been granted four months to enact legislative amendments requiring justification when rejecting premature release pleas.
How will the implementation be monitored?
The Supreme Court requested that High Courts monitor the implementation of remission and premature release policies to ensure compliance.
