HC-KAR IN THE HIGH C DATED THI THE HON'BL WRIT PETITI BETWEEN SRI KISHAN S/O LALARAMJI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEAR R/AT 3RD CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034 CURRENTLY SERVING CENTRAL PRISON, MY (BY SRI. PRADEEP PAT SRI. PRATHAP S.S AND 1. THE STATE OF BY THE PRINCIP HOME DEPARTM VIDHANA SOUD BENGALURU-56 2. THE DIRECTOR PRISONS AND C SERVICES, NO.9, SHESHAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-56 1 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE 'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ITION NO.25250 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) EARS, 34 VING SENTENCE IN MYSORE. ... PETIT PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR S.S., ADVOCATE) OF KARNATAKA NCIPAL SECRETARY, ARTMENT, SOUDHA, 560001 OR GENERAL OF POLICE AND CORRECTIONAL SHADRI ROAD, GAR, 560009 HC:15413 0 of 2025 URU CE) TITIONER R Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR 3. THE CHIEF SUP CENTRAL PRISO MYSORE-57000 (BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S SMT. K.P. YASHO THIS WRIT PET OF THE CONSTITUTI ORDER OR DIRECTIO TO RELEASE THE PET OF THE ORDER PAS SUKHDEV YADAV @ OTHERS IN CRIMINA ANNEXURE -C. THIS WRIT PET BEEN RESERVED FO COURT PRONOUNCED 1. The Petitione following relie a) Issue Mandamu petitione order pa Sukhdev Delhi & 2025) pr b) Pass s the facts as to cos 2 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of SUPERINTENDENT ISON, 0007 …. RESPON P C.S., AAG A/W SHODHA., AGA) PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 UTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A TION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO T PETITIONER FROM PRISON FORTHWITH, IN PASSED BY THE HONORABLE APEX CO @ PEHALWAN V/S STATE OF NCT OF DELH INAL APPEAL NO.3271 OF 2025, PRODUC PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND H FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2025, THIS DAY CED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER ioner is before the Court seeking fo reliefs: sue a writ, order or direction in the nature o amus to the respondent No.3 to release the oner from prison forthwith, in view of the passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in dev Yadav @ Pehalwan v/s State of NCT o & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 3271 o ) produced as Annexure-C. ss such other order/s directions considering acts and circumstances of the case togethe costs in the interest of justice. HC:15413 0 of 2025 ONDENTS 26 & 227 A WRIT, O THE R3 , IN VIEW COUT IN ELHI AND UCED AS D HAVING DAY, THE g for the re of the the t in T of 1 of ring ther HC-KAR 2. The petition punishable un Code and No.463/2003 Sessions Cou challenge havi Appeal No.11 modified the The said mod “On thor that the rarest of gruesom been mu does not calls for sentence accused imprisonm It is furth not be fourteen routine. sentence Section 5 appeals a 3. The petitione years of actu conduct bein adverse repo dated 15.1.2 entitled to pre 3 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of itioner was convicted for the off le under Section 302, 364A of Indian nd awarded death sentence in 003 by the IV Additional City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. having been made, this Court in Cri o.1197/2008 vide judgment dated 6.6. the death sentence to life imprisonm modified order reads as under:- thorough consideration of the facts, we fin the case does not appears to be one of th t of rare case. It may be fact that it is ome murder and two innocent children hav murdered. But none the less, the murde not appear to be rarest of rare case, whic for death sentence. Accordingly, the deat nce awarded by the trial court is modified an ed nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to lif sonment. further directed that accused nos.1 to 3 sha be given commutation after completion o een years of imprisonment as a matter o ne. The accused have to serve the lif nce and they should be in jail in terms o on 57 of IPC. Accordingly, the reference an als are disposed of.” tioner claims to have undergone tw actual imprisonment as on 15.1.2025. being satisfactory and there being eport as per the Imprisonment Certi .1.2025, the petitioner claims that premature release. HC:15413 0 of 2025 offences ian Penal in SC Civil and luru. A Criminal 6.6.2013 sonment. find f the is a ave urder which death d and life shall n of er of life s of e and e twenty 025. His eing no ertificate at he is HC-KAR 4. Sri.Pradeep P for the petit decision of t Sukhdev Yad Delhi) & ot 15.1, 15.2, 1 hereunder for 3.2. The 17.02.200 Kavi Nag Section (hereinaft Smt. Nila deceased. investigat and Visha offences Section 3 Additional Court”). T imprisonm under Sec of fine, to They wer years and under Sec fine, to u and rigoro 10,000/- of payme three mon 15. The inter alia, “Life impr imprisonm fine of Rs. The wor imprisonm 1Criminal Appeal No.327 4 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ep Patil/Sri.Prathap S.S., learned co petitioner in this regard relies upon of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ca Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (N others1more particularly Paras 3.2 2, 15.3, 15.4 and 16, which are reprod r for easy reference: The relevant facts of the case are that o .2002, FIR No. 192/2002 was registered at P.S Nagar, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh und 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 186 nafter, “IPC”) on the basis of a complaint filed b Nilam Katara i.e. complainant and mother of th sed. On 28.05.2008, after completion igation and trial, his co-convicts – Vikas Yada shal Yadav – were convicted for commission es under Sections 302, 364, 201 read wit n 34 of the IPC in SC No. 78/2002 by th onal Sessions Judge (01), New Delhi, (“Session ”). Thereafter, they were sentenced to undergo li onment as well as fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- eac Section 302 of the IPC and in default of paymen e, to undergo simple imprisonment for one yea were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for te and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for their convictio Section 364/34 IPC and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment of six month gorous imprisonment for five years and fine of R - each under Section 201/34 IPC and in defau yment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment fo months. All sentences were to run concurrently. he sentence imposed on the appellant herei lia, is recapitulated as under: imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actu onment without consideration of remission, an f Rs. 10,000/-.” word “which” used after the words “li onment”, is an interrogative pronoun, relate 3271/2025 dated 29.7.2025 HC:15413 0 of 2025 counsel upon the case of (NCT of 3.2, 15, produced t on t P.S. under 1860 ed by f the n of Yadav on of with y the sions o life each ment year. r ten iction ent of nths, of Rs. efault nt for tly. erein, actual , and “life lated HC-KAR pronoun previously further in imprisonm actual im twenty y during hi i.e., after 433A of t period o whatsoev make an sentence 15.1. In by Vikas Y 1530 of 2 appellant sentence questione sentence be found State of U 84 of its j Court ob paramete terms sen 15.2. In imprisonm imprisonm Soon afte our view, jail provid appellant applicatio completio reason th years of period of any remis of the twe unnecessa sentence imprisonm other han responden contended which wa appellant 5 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of un and determiner, referring to somethin usly mentioned when introducing a clause givin information. Therefore, the sentence of li onment is determined as twenty years which is l imprisonment. Further, during the period y years, the appellant cannot seek remissio his sentence of twenty years of imprisonmen ter completion of fourteen years as per Sectio of the CrPC but must continue his sentence for of twenty years without any remissio oever. Therefore, the appellant has no right any application for remission of the abov nce for a period of twenty years. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 1531-1533 of 2015 file as Yadav as well as in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1528 of 2015 which also included the appeal filed by th lant herein, the imposition of a fixed ter nce on the appellants by the High Court was als ioned but this Court observed that such a term nce on the appellants by the High Court could n nd fault with. Placing reliance on Gopal Singh of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545, at paragrap its judgment in the aforesaid criminal appeal, th observed that “Judged on the aforesa eters, we reiterate that the imposition of fixe sentence is justified.” In the instant case, as already noted, the li onment being twenty years of actu onment was without consideration of remissio after the period of twenty years is completed, iew, the appellant has to be simply released fro rovided the other sentences run concurrently. Th lant is not under an obligation to make a ation seeking remission of his sentence o letion of twenty years. This is simply for th n that the appellant has completed his twen of actual imprisonment and in fact, during th of twenty years, the appellant was not entitled t mission. Thus, in the instant case, on completio twenty years’ of actual imprisonment, it is whol essary for the appellant to seek remission of h nce on the premise that his sentence is a li onment i.e. till the end of his natural life. On th hand, learned senior counsel appearing for th ndent-State and respondent-complainan nded that once the period of twenty years is ove was without any consideration of remission, th lant had to seek remission of his sentence (li HC:15413 0 of 2025 thing giving f life is of d of ission ment ection for a ission ht to above filed 1528- y the term s also rm of ld not gh v. graph l, this esaid fixed e life actual ssion. ed, in from . The e an e on r the enty g the led to letion holly of his a life n the r the inant over, , the (life HC-KAR imprisonm Sentence accordanc whether appellant cannot be (i) firstly, life impris actual im completed (ii) secon appellant (iii) third imprisonm 15.3. Thi death pen has been years of a of death p fixed term possible o period of the appel sentence 432 read has been mean th imprisonm his senten imprisonm that was those ter imposed l of actua remission period of actual im meaning a 15.4. In twenty ye on 09.03. is so, it w his perio aforesaid completio 6 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of onment) by making an application to th nce Review Board which would consider ance with the applicable policy and decid er the remission of sentence imposed on th lant has to be granted or not. Such a contentio t be accepted for the following reasons: tly, because, in the instant case, the sentence prisonment has been fixed to be twenty years l imprisonment which the appellant herein ha leted; condly, during the period of twenty years th lant was not entitled to seek any remission; and hirdly, on completion of twenty years of actu onment, the appellant is entitled to be released. This is because in this case, instead of grantin penalty, alternative penalty of life imprisonmen een awarded which shall be for a period of twen of actual imprisonment. That even in the absenc th penalty being imposed, life imprisonment of term of twenty years was imposed which le only for a High Court or this Court to do so. Th of twenty years is without remission inasmuch a ppellant is denied the right of remission of h nce on completion of fourteen years as per Sectio ead with Section 433-A of the CrPC. Such a righ een denied by the High Court but that does n that on completion of twenty years onment the appellant has to still seek reduction ntence on the premise that he was awarded li onment which is till the end of his natural life. as so, the High Court would have specified it terms. On the other hand, the High Court ha ed life imprisonment which shall be twenty yea ctual imprisonment without consideration sion. The High Court was of the view that for of twenty years, the appellant has to underg l imprisonment which would not take within i ing any period granted for parole or furlough. In the instant case, the actual imprisonment y years was admittedly completed by the appellan .03.2025 which was without any remission. If th it would imply that the appellant has complete eriod of sentence. In fact, the award of th aid sentence was also confirmed by this Court. O letion of twenty years of actual imprisonment o HC:15413 0 of 2025 the er in ecide the ntion ce of ars of has s the ctual ed. nting ment wenty sence of a ch is . The ch as f his ection right s not s of ion of d life ife. If it in t has years n of for a dergo in its nt of ellant f that leted f the rt. On nt on HC-KAR 09.03.202 The relea upon furt released o granted to fact, the S over wha sentence this Court the appel other han for furlou thereafter 25.06.202 then, pen made by sentence incarcerat was illega to have b the sente affirmed b 16. A co Registry o States/Un accused/c of senten such accu 4.1. By relyi learned of life im term of the con immedia of actua not dep the Sen 7 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of .2025, the appellant was entitled to be release elease of the appellant from jail does not depen further consideration as to whether he has to b ed or not and as to whether remission has to b d to him or not by the Sentence Review Board. I he Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgmen what has been judicially determined as th nce by the High Court which has been affirmed b ourt. There cannot be any further incarceration ppellant herein from 09.03.2025 onwards. On th hand, in the instant case, the appellant’s praye rlough was refused by the High Court an ter, this Court granted furlough only o .2025 as he had completed his actual sentence b pending consideration of the amended praye by the appellant herein on completion of h nce on 09.03.2025. Therefore, the continuou eration of the appellant from 09.03.2025 onward legal. In fact, on 10.03.2025, the appellant ough e been released from prison as he had complete entence imposed on him by the High Court a ed by this Court. copy of this order shall be circulated by th ry of this Court to all the Home Secretaries of th /Union Territories to ascertain whether an ed/convict has remained in jail beyond the perio tence and if so, to issue directions for release ccused/convicts, if not wanted in any other case. relying on Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehal ned counsel submits that where a sen fe imprisonment is specified to mean a of actual imprisonment without remis convict becomes entitled to be rele ediately upon completion of the said p ctual imprisonment, and such release depend upon any further consideratio Sentence Review Board or the gra HC:15413 0 of 2025 ased. pend to be to be rd. In ment the ed by ion of n the rayer and, on ce by rayer f his nuous wards ought leted rt as y the of the any eriod se of ase. ehalwan, sentence n a fixed emission, released id period ase does ration by grant of HC-KAR remissio contend imposed undergo be illeg Court in 4.2. He relie as unde 57. Fra calculatin imprisonm equivalen 4.3. Placing learned is to be of impri has bee be entit twenty contend period order imprison satisfied imprison 8 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ission by the State. He would ther end that once the period of sen osed by the Court has been ergone, any continued incarceration w illegal, as held by the Hon’ble Sup rt in the aforesaid decision. elies on Section 57 of the IPC, which nder: Fractions of terms of punishment.— lating fractions of terms of punishmen sonment for life shall be reckoned a alent to imprisonment for twenty years. ing reliance on the aforesaid provi ned counsel submits that life imprison be reckoned as equivalent to twenty mprisonment, and therefore a convict been sentenced to life imprisonment w entitled to be released upon completi nty years of imprisonment. It is fu ended that unless a specific mini od of incarceration is prescribed in r of conviction, a sentence of risonment must be understood as sfied upon completion of twenty yea risonment. On that premise, it is subm HC:15413 0 of 2025 therefore sentence en fully on would Supreme ich reads —In ent, d as provision, isonment nty years vict who nt would pletion of s further minimum d in the of life as being years of ubmitted HC-KAR that the period o is illegal allowed. 5. Sri.Pradeep General would 5.1. The inte petitione judgmen Appeal was or death, w to life Section judgmen life imp twenty ordinari remaind unless s 5.2. He woul where release may be life term 9 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of the petitioner having completed the od of incarceration, the continued dete egal and the present petition deserves ed. ep C.S., learned Additional Advo ould submit that: interpretation sought to be placed b tioner on the operative portion of ment passed in the aforesaid Cri eal is wholly misconceived. The petit originally convicted and sentence th, which, in appeal, came to be comm ife imprisonment. The mere referen tion 57 of the Indian Penal Code in ment does not mean that the senten imprisonment is restricted to a peri nty years. A sentence of life imprison narily means imprisonment for ainder of the natural life of the co ss specifically limited by the Court. would further submit that it is only in re the conditions governing prem ase or remission are satisfied that a co be released before completion of the e term. Normally, a convict becomes el HC:15413 0 of 2025 the said detention ves to be Advocate d by the of the Criminal petitioner nced to ommuted rence to e in the ntence of period of isonment for the convict, y in cases remature a convict the entire s eligible HC-KAR to seek fourteen Howeve made re petitione prematu years of 5.3. Learned further petitione Suprem misplace specifica imprison imprison the bas the Ho sentenc undergo imprison 5.4. In the imposed any jud years. S the judg 10 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of seek premature release after under teen years of actual imprisonm ever, in the present case, as this Cour e reference to Section 57 of the IPC tioner would not even be entitled to ature release until completion of tw rs of imprisonment. ned Additional Advocate General w her contend that the reliance placed b tioner on the decision of the Ho reme Court in Sukhdev Yadav laced. In the said case, the Court ifically fixed the sentence of risonment to mean twenty years of a risonment without remission, and it w basis of such a judicial determination Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ence stood completed upon the co ergoing twenty years of a risonment. the present case, however, the sen osed is simple life imprisonment wi judicial restriction limiting it to tw rs. Such a restriction cannot be read judgment merely by referring to Sectio HC:15413 0 of 2025 dergoing sonment. Court has IPC, the to seek f twenty al would d by the Hon’ble adav is ourt had of life of actual it was on tion that that the convict actual sentence t without o twenty read into ection 57 HC-KAR of the I Advocat would purpose 5.5. He wou question Court m of the c victim a life impr in its imprison life of t the Cou 5.6. Learned that Sec for the p of pun reckone said pro duration does it complet 5.7. He fur remissio 11 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of he IPC. According to the learned Addi ocate General, any such interpret ld be erroneous and would defeat ose of sentencing. would further submit that while consid stions relating to sentence and release rt must have regard not only to the r he convict, but also to the interests o im and the society at large. A senten imprisonment must therefore be under its ordinary legal sense, na risonment for the remainder of the na of the convict, unless expressly limite Court. ned Additional Advocate General reite Section 57 of the IPC merely provides the purpose of calculating fractions of t punishment, life imprisonment may oned as equivalent to twenty years. provision does not determine the a tion of a sentence of life imprisonmen s it mandate the release of a convict pletion of twenty years. further submits that the questio ission or premature release falls en HC:15413 0 of 2025 dditional pretation feat the nsidering ease, the he rights ts of the ntence of derstood namely, e natural ited by reiterates vides that of terms may be ars. The he actual ent, nor vict after stion of entirely HC-KAR within Governm Section Sanhita, of Crimi the IPC the peri 5.8. He relie Court in State o particula hereund 8. Brie 26 of be un impris After t in the impris senten author Penal prison law to framed to ear the sa term out th life is is only other life or one of do no possib 21961 SCC OnLine SC 70 12 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of in the domain of the approp ernment, in exercise of its powers u tion 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sura hita, 2023 (earlier Section 432 of the riminal Procedure). Therefore, Section IPC cannot be invoked to restrict or period of a sentence of life imprisonme relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble rt in the case of Gopal Vinayk Gods te of Maharashtra and others2, icularly Paras 8 and 9 which are reprod under for easy reference: Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before Ac of 1955 a sentence of transportation for life cou undergone by a prisoner by way of rigorou prisonment for life in a designated prison in Indi ter the said Act, such a convict shall be dealt wit the same manner as one sentenced to rigorou prisonment for the same term. Unless the sa ntence is commuted or remitted by appropria thority under the relevant provisions of the India nal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, isoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the life, term in prison. The rule med under the Prisons Act enable such a prisone earn remissions- ordinary, special and State-an e said remissions will be given credit towards h rm of imprisonment. For the purpose of workin t the remissions the sentence of transportation fo is ordinarily equated with a definite period, but only for that particular purpose and not for an her purpose. As the sentence of transportation fo or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment, e of indefinite duration, the remissions so earne not in practice help such a convict as it is n ssible to predicate the time of his death. That C 70 HC:15413 0 of 2025 propriate rs under Suraksha the Code tion 57 of t or alter nment. ’ble Apex odse vs. , more produced e Act could orous India. t with orous said priate ndian , a nd in rules soner and s his rking on for but it r any n for nt, is arned is not hat is HC-KAR why th approp Sectio consid period remiss approp admitt made Code entire petitio 9. The that if at the that t remit that h earned service as wel power Gover canno not ex 5.9. By relyi learned that a s means natural is comm Governm He woul clearly l years in limited p of puni 13 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of y the rules provide for a procedure to enable th propriate Government to remit the sentence unde ction 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on nsideration of the relevant factors, including th riod of remissions earned. The question mission is exclusively within the province of th propriate Government; and in this case it mitted that, though the appropriate Governmen ade certain remissions under Section 401 of th de of Criminal Procedure, it did not remit th tire sentence. We, therefore, hold that th titioner has not yet acquired any right to release. The petitioner made an impassioned appeal to u at if such a construction be accepted, he would b the mercy of the appropriate Government an at the said Government, out of spite, might no mit the balance of his sentence, with the resu at he would be deprived of the fruits of remission rned by him for sustained good conduct, usef rvice and even donation of blood. The Constitutio well as the Code of Criminal Procedure confer th wer to remit a sentence on the executiv vernment and it is in its exclusive province. W nnot assume that the appropriate Government w t exercise its jurisdiction in a reasonable manner. relying upon Gopal Vinayak Go ned Additional Advocate General su a sentence of life imprisonment ordi ns imprisonment for the remainder o ral life of the convict, unless the sen ommuted or remitted by the approp ernment in exercise of its statutory po ould further submit that the said judg rly lays down that the reference to tw rs in Section 57 of the IPC is only fo ted purpose of calculating fractions of t unishment, and cannot be construe HC:15413 0 of 2025 le the under on a g the n of f the it is ment f the it the the ase. to us ld be t and t not result sions useful tution r the cutive . We t will ner. Godse, submits ordinarily er of the sentence propriate y powers. judgment to twenty y for the of terms trued as HC-KAR fixing t imprison accordin release of impri 5.10. He relie Court in of Punja which referenc 26. impris years, This C of a f be su cleme Gover repriev 161 o exerci of U.P 3 SCC scope very l mind releva arbitra comm exerci restric Code. 27. In Code i (2) to 3(2013) 3 SCC 294 14 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of g the duration of a sentence of risonment at twenty years. There rding to him, the petitioner cannot ase merely on completion of twenty prisonment. relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble rt in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. unjab3, more particularly Paras 26 an h are reproduced hereunder for rence: Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent prisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 3 ars, rather it always means the whole natural lif is Court has always clarified that the punishmen a fixed term of imprisonment so awarded wou subject to any order passed in exercise mency powers of the President of India or th vernor of the State, as the case may be. Pardon prieves and remissions under Article 72 or Artic 1 of the Constitution of India are granted ercise of prerogative power. As observed in Sta U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 537 : (2012 SCC (Cri) 970] (SCC p. 546, para 24) there is n ope of judicial review of such orders except o ry limited grounds such as the non-application ind while passing the order, non-consideration levant material, or if the order suffers fro bitrariness. The power to grant pardons and mmute sentences is coupled with a duty ercise the same fairly, reasonably and in terms strictions imposed in several provisions of th de. In order to check all arbitrary remissions, th de itself provides several conditions. Sub-section ) to (5) of Section 432 of the Code lay down bas HC:15413 0 of 2025 of life herefore, not claim nty years ’ble Apex vs. State and 27, for easy nt to en 30 l life. ment would se of r the dons, rticle ed in State 2012) is no pt on ion of ion of from nd to ty to ms of f the , the ctions basic HC-KAR proced approp of sen behalf the ap of Sec the si provis fulfilm mentio rules. the p arbitra remiss fair to down check approp Court 452 miscon has an either convic remain any Gover turn is in the Sectio 5.11. By relyi Addition law is w imprison life of commut Governm constitu 15 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ocedure for making an application to th propriate Government for suspension or remissio sentence either by the convict or someone on h half. We are of the view that exercise of power b e appropriate Government under sub-section (1 Section 432 of the Code cannot be suo motu fo e simple reason that this is only an enablin ovision and the same would be possible subject lfilment of certain conditions. Those conditions ar entioned either in the Jail Manual or in statuto les. This Court in various decisions has held th e power of remission cannot be exercise bitrarily. In other words, the decision to gran mission has to be well informed, reasonable an ir to all concerned. The statutory procedure la wn in Section 432 of the Code itself provides th eck on the possible misuse of power by th propriate Government. As rightly observed by th urt in Sangeet v. State of Haryana [(2013) 2 SC 2 : (2012) 11 Scale 140] , there is isconception that a prisoner serving life sentenc s an indefeasible right to release on completion her 14 years' or 20 years' imprisonment. nvict undergoing life imprisonment is expected main in custody till the end of his life, subject y remission granted by the appropria vernment under Section 432 of the Code which n is subject to the procedural checks mentione the said provision and further substantive check ction 433-A of the Code. relying upon Mohinder Singh, lea itional Advocate General submits tha is well settled that life imprisonment m risonment for the remainder of the na of the convict, unless the senten muted or remitted by the approp ernment in exercise of its statutor titutional powers. Therefore, accordin HC:15413 0 of 2025 the ission n his er by n (1) tu for bling ect to s are utory that rcised grant e and e laid s this the y this SCC is a tence ion of nt. A ed to ect to priate ich in ioned eck in learned that the nt means e natural tence is propriate utory or ording to HC-KAR him, the right of years of 5.12. He relie Court in Khoka @ others reprodu 17. Th similar of Ind The s Article petitio impris impris remiss pointe liable Benga Explan Correc of 19 equate said e hand. the W going the de [(1944 PC 64 Bench 600 : thus: SCC (C “13. T 751(c) 4(2013) 3 SCC 425 16 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of , the petitioner cannot claim an auto t of release merely on completion of tw rs of imprisonment. relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble rt in the case of Life Convict Bang ka @ Prasanta Sen vs. B.K.Srivastava ers4, more particularly Para 17, whi oduced hereunder for easy reference: The last decision which is directly on the poin ilar to the case on hand is Mohd. Munna v. Unio India [(2005) 7 SCC 417 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1688] e said case arose in a writ petition filed unde ticle 32 of the Constitution. According to th titioner therein, the length of duration prisonment for life is equivalent to 20 year prisonment and that too subject to furthe mission admissible under law. It was furthe inted out that on completion of this term, he wa ble to be released under Rule 751(c) of the We ngal Jail Code. The petitioner relied on th planation to Section 61 of the West Beng rrectional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal Act 3 1992) whereunder imprisonment for life uated to a term of 20 years' imprisonment. A id earlier, it is a case identical to the case o nd. Here again, the Explanation to Section 61 e West Bengal Act was pressed into service. Afte ing into the very same provisions and considerin e decision of the Privy Council in Kishori Lal cas 944-45) 72 IA 1 : (1945) 58 LW 251 : AIR 194 64] as well as the decision of the Constitutio nch in Gopal Vinayak Godse case [AIR 1961 S 0 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 736] , this Court conclude us: (Mohd. Munna case [(2005) 7 SCC 417 : 200 C (Cri) 1688] , SCC pp. 425-27, paras 13-17) 3. The counsel contended that by virtue of Ru 1(c) of the West Bengal Jail Code, the petitione HC:15413 0 of 2025 utomatic of twenty ’ble Apex angal @ tava and which is ce: point Union 88] . under the n of years' rther rther e was West the engal ct 32 fe is t. As se on 61 of After ering l case 1945 tution 1 SC luded 2005 Rule tioner HC-KAR was li twenty Sectio Act, 1 impris years' remiss Penal where fourte forma Sectio ‘57.Fr calcula impris to imp The a remiss Gover very p of the [(1944 PC 64 10 : A ‘… Ass one o good c to en applica but in taken cases years, remiss 14. Th Act an author only p for th Theref or the specia 15. In LJ 736 that th 17 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of s liable to be released from jail on completion enty years. He also relied on the Explanation ction 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Service t, 1992 (W.B. Act 32 of 1992) wherein th prisonment for life is equated to a term of twen ars' simple imprisonment for the purpose mission. But there is no provision either in th nal Code or in the Code of Criminal Procedur ereby life imprisonment could be treated a urteen years or twenty years without there being rmal remission by the appropriate Governmen ction 57 of the Penal Code reads as follows: 7.Fractions of terms of punishment.— lculating fractions of terms of punishmen prisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalen imprisonment for twenty years.’ e above section is applicable for the purpose mission when the matter is considered by th vernment under the appropriate provisions. Th ry plea was placed before the Judicial Committe the Privy Council in Kishori Lal v. King Empero 944-45) 72 IA 1 : (1945) 58 LW 251 : AIR 194 64] and the Privy Council held as under: (IA : AIR p. 67) Assuming that the sentence is to be regarded a e of twenty years, and subject to remission fo od conduct, he had not earned remission sufficien entitle him to discharge at the time of h plication, and it was therefore rightly dismisse t in saying this, Their Lordships are not to b ken as meaning that a life sentence must and in a ses be treated as one of not more than twen ars, or that the convict is necessarily entitled mission.’ . The Prisons Rules are made under the Prison t and the Prisons Act by itself does not confer an thority or power to commute or remit sentence. ly provides for the regulation of the prisons an r the terms of the prisoners confined therei erefore, the West Bengal Correctional Services A the West Bengal Jail Code do not confer an ecial right on the petitioner herein. . In Godse case [AIR 1961 SC 600 : (1961) 1 C 736] , the Constitution Bench of this Court he at the sentence of imprisonment for life is not fo HC:15413 0 of 2025 ion of on to rvices the wenty se of n the edure d as ing a ment. —In ment, alent se of y the . This ittee peror 1945 IA p. ed as n for icient f his issed, to be in all wenty ed to risons r any ce. It s and erein. s Act r any 1 Cri held ot for HC-KAR any d must, the w person as foll ‘5. … I be dee all pu substi “trans such transp prima impris of the 16. S para 8 ‘8. Bri 26 of be un impris After t in the impris senten author Code senten serve the P remiss said re of imp remiss ordina only f other life or one of do no possib death. to ena senten Proced includ questi 18 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of y definite period and the imprisonment for li ust, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment fo e whole of the remaining period of the convicte rson's natural life. It was also held in AIR para follows: (AIR p. 603 : SCR pp. 444-45) . … It does not say that transportation for life sha deemed to be transportation for twenty years fo purposes; nor does the amended section whic bstitutes the words “imprisonment for life” fo ansportation for life” enable the drawing of an ch all-embracing fiction. A sentence nsportation for life or imprisonment for life mu ima facie be treated as transportation o prisonment for the whole of the remaining perio the convicted person's natural life.’ . Summarising the decision, it was held in AI ra 8 as under: (AIR pp. 603-04 : SCR p. 447) . Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before A of 1955 a sentence of transportation for life cou undergone by a prisoner by way of rigorou prisonment for life in a designated prison in Indi ter the said Act, such a convict shall be dealt wit the same manner as one sentenced to rigorou prisonment for the same term. Unless the sa ntence is commuted or remitted by appropria thority under the relevant provisions of the Pen de or the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prisone ntenced to life imprisonment is bound in law rve the life term in prison. The Rules framed unde e Prisons Act enable such a prisoner to ear missions—ordinary, special and State—and th id remissions will be given credit towards his ter imprisonment. For the purpose of working out th missions the sentence of transportation for life dinarily equated with a definite period, but it ly for that particular purpose and not for an her purpose. As the sentence of transportation fo or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment, e of indefinite duration, the remissions so earne not in practice help such a convict as it is n ssible to predicate (sic predict) the time of h ath. That is why the Rules provide for a procedur enable the appropriate Government to remit th ntence under Section 401 of the Code of Crimin ocedure on a consideration of the relevant factor luding the period of remissions earned. Th estion of remission is exclusively within th HC:15413 0 of 2025 r life nt for victed ara 5 shall rs for which ” for f any of must n or eriod AIR re Act could orous India. t with orous said priate Penal soner aw to under earn the term t the life is it is r any n for nt, is arned is not f his edure it the iminal ctors, The the HC-KAR provin case Gover 401 o remit the p releas We ar Consti impris fourte the pe 17. Th fail a on an long a approp clear expres entitle Gover approp law.” 5.13. By relyi Sen, le submits that life fixed te unless limiting by the undergo release of impri 19 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ovince of the appropriate Government; and in th se it is admitted that, though the appropria vernment made certain remissions under Sectio 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did n mit the entire sentence. We, therefore, hold th e petitioner has not yet acquired any right lease.’ e are bound by the above dicta laid down by th nstitution Bench and we hold that li prisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment fo urteen years or for twenty years as contended b e petitioner. . Thus, all the contentions raised by the petitione il and the petitioner is not entitled to be release any of the grounds urged in the writ petition s g as there is no order of remission passed by th propriate Government in his favour. We make ar that our decision need not be taken a pression of our view that the petitioner is n titled to any remission at all. The appropria vernment would be at liberty to pass an propriate order of remission in accordance wit .” relying upon Bangal @ Khoka @ Pra , learned Additional Advocate Ge mits that the legal position is well se life imprisonment cannot be equated d term of fourteen or twenty years, ss there is a specific judicial dire ting the sentence or an order of rem the appropriate Government, a co ergoing life imprisonment cannot ase merely on completion of twenty prisonment HC:15413 0 of 2025 n this priate ection d not that ht to y the life nt for ed by tioner eased on so y the ake it n as s not priate any with Prasanta General ll settled ated to a ars, and direction remission convict ot claim nty years HC-KAR 5.14. On the learned that the in Sukh to the matter been sp twenty remissio 5.15. In the imposed imprison limiting to him automat twenty ye 5.16. He wou remissio exclusive Governm with th policy. C of direct on the 20 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of the basis of the aforesaid judgm ned Additional Advocate General su the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Sukhdev Yadav would have no applic he facts of the present case, as in ter the sentence of life imprisonmen n specifically restricted by the Cou nty years of actual imprisonment wi ission. the present case, however, the sen osed upon the petitioner is simple risonment without any judicial restr ting it to a fixed term. Therefore, acco him, the petitioner cannot claim matic right of release upon completi nty years of imprisonment. would further submit that the questi ission or premature release lies withi usive domain of the approp ernment, to be considered in accord the applicable statutory provisions . Consequently, there can be no que irecting the release of the petitioner m the basis that he has completed tw HC:15413 0 of 2025 dgments, submits me Court pplication s in that ent had Court to t without sentence mple life estriction according laim an letion of estion of ithin the propriate cordance ions and question er merely d twenty HC-KAR years of of the p 6. Heard Sri.Pr petitioner respondents. 7. The points th (i) Whe Cour while life i accu term cons life twen (ii) Whe claim grou year relia Pena Hon’ Yada Delh (iii) Whe judic of t impr impr natu 21 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of rs of imprisonment, as contended on b e petitioner. ri.Pradeep Patil learned counsel for and Sri.Pradeep C.S., AAG nts. Perused papers. s that would arise for consideration are hether the judgment passed by ourt in Criminal Appeal No.1197/2 hile commuting the death senten ife imprisonment and directing tha ccused shall serve the sentence erms of Section 57 of the IPC”, ca onstrued as restricting the senten ife imprisonment to a fixed term wenty years of imprisonment? hether the petitioner is entitle laim release from prison merely on round that he has completed tw ears of imprisonment, by pla eliance on Section 57 of the In enal Code and the judgment of on’ble Supreme Court in Suk adav @ Pehalwan vs. State (NC elhi)? hether, in the absence of a spe udicial direction restricting the dur f the sentence, a sentence of mprisonment must be understoo mprisonment for the remainder o atural life of the convict, subjec HC:15413 0 of 2025 on behalf for the AG for are: by this 7/2008, tence to that the ence “in , can be tence of term of titled to ly on the twenty placing Indian t of the Sukhdev (NCT of specific duration of life tood as r of the bject to HC-KAR comm with (iv) Whe enfo upon impr of re with appr appli polic (v) Whe the twen said issua direc (vi) Wha Cour Cons to relea by th (vii) Wha 8. I answer the a 9. Answer to P passed by No.1197/200 sentence to l the accused of Section 5 restricting th a fixed term 22 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ommutation or remission in accord ith law? hether the petitioner has nforceable legal right to be rele pon completion of twenty year mprisonment, or whether the que f remission or premature release ithin the exclusive domain of ppropriate Government under pplicable statutory provisions olicy? hether the continued incarceratio he petitioner after completion wenty years of imprisonment ca aid to be illegal, so as to warran ssuance of a writ of manda irecting his release? hat is the scope of interference by ourt under Articles 226 and 227 o onstitution of India in matters rela o sentence remission, prema elease and executive powers exerc y the appropriate Government? hat Order he above points as follows to Point No. (i):Whether the judgm by this Court in Criminal Ap /2008, while commuting the d to life imprisonment and directing sed shall serve the sentence “in t n 57 of the IPC”, can be construe g the sentence of life imprisonme rm of twenty years of imprisonmen HC:15413 0 of 2025 cordance as any released ears of question ase lies of the er the ns and ration of tion of can be rant the andamus e by this 7 of the relating emature xercised udgment Appeal e death ting that in terms trued as ment to ment? HC-KAR 9.1. Sri. Pra petitione originall the IV A Mayo H for offen 364A (hereina that on No.1197 commut imprison the acc after imprison 'the acc and the 57 of IP 9.2. The lear terms direction sentenc actual i 57 of t 23 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, submits that the petitioner inally convicted and sentenced to dea IV Additional City Civil and Sessions C o Hall Unit, Bengaluru in SC No.463/2 offences punishable under Sections 302 A of the Indian Penal Code, einafter referred to as 'IPC'). He su on appeal, this Court in Criminal A 197/2008, vide judgment dated 6.6.2 muted the death sentence to risonment, while further directing that accused 'shall not be given commut r completion of fourteen years risonment as a matter of routine'; an accused have to serve the life sen they should be in jail in terms of Se f IPC.' learned counsel submits that the phra s of Section 57 of IPC' is a ju ction that restricts and defines the tence as a sentence of twenty yea al imprisonment. He submits that Se of the IPC equates imprisonment fo HC:15413 0 of 2025 for the ner was death by ns Court, 63/2003, 302 and e, 1860 submits al Appeal 6.6.2013, to life that: (a) mutation ears of ; and (b) sentence f Section hrase 'in judicial the life years of t Section t for life HC-KAR with im calculat and tha accused Section life sent period s 9.3. The lea the dec Sukhde Suprem is expr years o stands undergo entitled any fur Sentenc 9.4. Sri. Pra has, as of act conduct the Imp He subm 24 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of imprisonment for twenty years ulating fractions of terms of punishm that when the Court expressly directe sed to serve the sentence 'in term tion 57 of IPC', the Court judicially fixe sentence at twenty years — the equiva od specified by Section 57. learned counsel places heavy relianc decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou hdev Yadavand submits that the Ho reme Court held that where a life sen xpressed as being equivalent to tw rs of actual imprisonment, the sen ds fully completed upon the co ergoing twenty years, and the convi tled to be simply released from jail wi further application for remission to tence Review Board. Pradeep Patil submits that the petit , as on 15.01.2025, completed twenty actual imprisonment with satisfa duct and no adverse report, as certifi Imprisonment Certificate dated 15.01.2 submits that the sentence imposed by HC:15413 0 of 2025 ears 'in ishment', ected the terms of y fixed the quivalent liance on Court in e Hon'ble sentence o twenty sentence convict onvict is il without n to the petitioner nty years tisfactory rtified in .01.2025. d by this HC-KAR Court continue and unc issuance release. 9.5. He relie 'Fraction calculat imprison equivale He subm conjunc Crimina petitione complet further 9.6. Sri. Pra General with Sm Governm submits petitione judgmen 25 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of rt stands fully undergone, and tinued detention of the petitioner is i unconstitutional, warranting the imme ance of a writ of mandamus directin ase. elies on Section 57 of the IPC, which r ctions of terms of punishmen ulating fractions of terms of punish risonment for life shall be reckone ivalent to imprisonment for twenty y submits that this provision, when re junction with the judgment of this Co inal Appeal No.1197/2008, means tha tioner's sentence stands satisfied pletion of twenty years, and that her incarceration is illegal. Pradeep C.S., learned Additional Advo eral (hereinafter 'AAG'), appearing Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned Addi ernment Advocate (hereinafter 'A mits that the interpretation placed b tioner on the operative portion of ment in Criminal Appeal No.1197/20 HC:15413 0 of 2025 and the is illegal mediate cting his ch reads: ent.—In ishment, oned as ty years.' read in Court in that the ed upon that any Advocate along dditional 'AGA'), d by the of the /2008 is HC-KAR wholly settled l 9.7. The lea portion not fix imprison sentenc are the direction convers twenty specifica minimum equiva before commut sentenc 9.8. The lear intended imprison imprison and exp Sukhde 'Life im 26 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of lly misconceived and contrary to led law. learned AAG submits that the oper ion of Criminal Appeal No.1197/2008 fix or restrict the sentence of risonment to twenty years. The substa tence awarded is 'life imprisonment', the exact words used. The subseq ction 'in terms of Section 57 of IPC' is version of the life sentence into a nty-year sentence. It is, at mos cification that the accused must unde imum period of actual imprison ivalent to the period under Sectio re any question of remission mutation arises. The expression tence' remains the operative term. learned AAG submits that if this Cour nded to restrict the sentence of risonment to twenty years of a risonment, it would have done so in express terms, as the High Cou hdev Yadav did, using the formu imprisonment which shall be 20 yea HC:15413 0 of 2025 to well- operative 008 does of life bstantive , these bsequent ' is not a a fixed most, a ndergo a isonment ction 57 sion or ion 'life ourt had of life f actual in clear Court in rmulation years of HC-KAR actual i remissio Crimina of such terms o as havi twenty ye 9.9. The lea Godse', Hon'ble equating period remissio and not this bi settles t negates 9.10. He also 'Banga hold tha natural term of that the in Suk 27 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of al imprisonment without consideratio ission.' No such language was use inal Appeal No.1197/2008. In the ab such specific language, the directio s of Section 57 of IPC' cannot be cons having judicially fixed the sentenc nty years. learned AAG relies on 'Gopal Vin se', a Constitution Bench decision o 'ble Supreme Court.which holds tha ating of life imprisonment with a de od for the purpose of working issions is 'only for that particular pu not for any other purpose.' He submits binding Constitution Bench prec les the scope of Section 57 of the IPC ates the petitioner's interpretation. also relies on 'Mohinder Singh' ngal @ Khoka', both of which conclu that life imprisonment means the w ral life and cannot be equated with a of fourteen or twenty years. He su the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Sukhdev Yadav is factually and le HC:15413 0 of 2025 ration of used in absence ction 'in onstrued tence at Vinayak n of the that the definite king out purpose mits that recedent IPC and gh' and nclusively he whole h a fixed submits me Court d legally HC-KAR distingu and exp sentenc absent i Appeal N 9.11. I have with ca includin No.1197 Sukhde decision decision Khoka Point (i) phrase judgmen read in restricti twenty ye 9.12. The op Crimina 6.6.201 modified to life i 28 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of inguishable, being premised on a sp explicit judicial direction fixing the tence at twenty years, which is en ent in the judgment of this Court in Cri eal No.1197/2008. ve heard learned counsel for both p care and have perused the re ding the judgment in Criminal A 197/2008, the relevant paragraph hdev Yadav, the Constitution B ision in Gopal Vinayak Godse, and isions in Mohinder Singh and Bang ka. The central question arising u t (i) is one of pure construction: doe se 'in terms of Section 57 of IPC' i ment of Criminal Appeal No.1197/2 in its full context, amount to a ju riction of the life sentence to a fixed te nty years of imprisonment? operative portion of the judgmen inal Appeal No.1197/2008, 2013, reads: 'the death sentenc ified and accused nos.1 to 3 are sente ife imprisonment. It is further directed HC:15413 0 of 2025 specific the life entirely Criminal h parties record, l Appeal raphs of Bench and the angal @ g under does the C' in the 97/2008, a judicial d term of ment in dated tence is entenced cted that HC-KAR accused commut of impr accused they sh IPC.' Th interpre 9.13. The firs the sen imprison as 'the 'life sen term of describe years' imprison sentenc decisive 9.14. The se judgmen contains Directio commut of imp 29 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of sed nos.1 to 3 shall not be mutation after completion of fourteen mprisonment as a matter of routine sed have to serve the life sentence should be in jail in terms of Section This is the sentence imposed that mu rpreted. first and foundational observation is sentence imposed is expressed as risonment' and then further and separ the life sentence.' The Court used the sentence' as the substantive and gove of the punishment. The sentence i cribed as a sentence 'which shall be tw rs' or 'of twenty years of a risonment.' The use of the term tence' as the operative description isive significance. second observation is structural. ment in Criminal Appeal No.1197/ tains two distinct and sequential direct ction (A): The accused shall not be mutation after completion of fourteen imprisonment as a matter of rou HC:15413 0 of 2025 e given een years tine. The ence and ion 57 of t must be n is that as 'life eparately the term overning ce is not e twenty f actual erm 'life ion is of ral. The 197/2008 irections: be given een years routine. HC-KAR Directio life sent of Secti and co deals w prohibit Directio as the o referenc period o 9.15. The com (a) the they mu imprison equivale years i before commut applicab 433-A C both consiste the peti was fixe Directio 30 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ction (B): The accused have to serve sentenceand they should be in jail in t ection 57 of IPC. These are two sep complementary directions. Direction ls with the period of fourteen ye ibiting routine commutation at that s ction (B) uses the expression 'life sent he operative term and adds the Sectio rence as the specification of the min od of actual imprisonment. combined reading of both Directions is the accused must serve a life sentence must be in jail, and their period of a risonment for the purpose of Sectio ivalent is twenty years, meaning tw rs is the minimum actual imprison re any question of remission mutation can arise, replacing the othe licable fourteen-year period under Se A CrPC. This reading gives full effe directions and maintains int sistency in the judgment. On the con petitioner's reading, that the life sen fixed at twenty years, would re ction (A) redundant and unnecessary, HC:15413 0 of 2025 erve the in terms separate ction (A) n years, at stage. sentence' ection 57 minimum s is this: ence; (b) of actual ction 57 g twenty isonment sion or otherwise r Section effect to internal contrary, sentence render ary, since HC-KAR if the se would b after fou 9.16. The rul judicial word in have b meaning having petitione (A) wou a Court years if years a point? T demolis 9.17. I now tu upon w Sukhde High C terms: years consider Rs.10,0 31 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of e sentence was fixed at twenty years, ld be no question of commutation fourteen years at all. rule against surplusage in statutory cial interpretation is well-established. d in a judgment or order is presum e been used deliberately and to ning. Courts are not to be understoo ing used words without purpose. I tioner's reading were accepted, Dire would become meaningless, for why w ourt prohibit commutation after fou rs if the sentence itself was fixed at tw rs and would automatically end at t? This internal incongruity is sufficie olish the petitioner's interpretation. w turn to the decision in Sukhdev Ya n which the petitioner strongly relie hdev Yadav, the sentence imposed b Court was expressed in the follo s: 'Life imprisonment which shall b rs of actual imprisonment wi sideration of remission, and fine 0,000/-.' The Hon'ble Supreme Cou HC:15413 0 of 2025 ars, there ion even tory and ed. Every umed to to carry rstood as . If the Direction hy would fourteen at twenty at that ficient to v Yadav, relies. In ed by the following ll be 20 without fine of Court at HC-KAR Para 15 word 'w held tha pronoun somethi introduc that th 'determ imprison 9.18. The cri Sukhde follows. specifica imprison imprison imprison years o nature one to fixed, n case, n words u Section definitio contrast 32 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of 15 of the said judgment analysed d 'which' used after 'Life imprisonment that it is 'an interrogative pronoun, re oun and determiner, referring ething previously mentioned oducing a clause giving further inform the sentence of life imprisonme ermined as twenty years which is of a risonment.' critical and material distinction bet hdev Yadav and the present case ws. In Sukhdev Yadav, the High cifically used the formulation risonment which shall be 20 years of a risonment', here, the word 'which' links risonment' directly and definitionally t rs of actual imprisonment,' convertin re of the sentence from an indeterm to a determinate one. The sentence d, not merely described. In the pr , no such definitional linkage exists ds used are 'life sentence' and 'in term tion 57 of IPC', these are not wor nition but words of duration reference trast is stark and unmistakable. Suk HC:15413 0 of 2025 ysed the ent' and n, related ring to when ormation' ment is of actual between se is as gh Court n 'Life of actual links 'Life lly to '20 rting the terminate ence was present xists. The terms of words of nce. The Sukhdev HC-KAR Yadav the lang 9.19. I shall detail. S punishm of puni reckone twenty 'Fraction languag express fraction say tha be twen convict released limited p 9.20. This lim been d Suprem Godse held: remissio life is o 33 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of av is, therefore, clearly distinguishab language and facts. all now examine Section 57 of the I il. Section 57 reads: 'Fractions of ter ishment.—In calculating fractions of unishment, imprisonment for life sha oned as equivalent to imprisonmen nty years.' The marginal headin ctions of terms of punishment.' uage of Section 57 is clear and its sco ressly limited. It applies 'in calcu tions of terms of punishment.' It doe that life imprisonment shall be deem twenty years for all purposes, or th vict sentenced to life imprisonment sh ased after twenty years. It is a specifi ted provision for arithmetic calculation. limited scope of Section 57 of the IPC n definitively established by the Ho reme Court of India. In Gopal Vin sewherein the Hon’ble Constitution B : 'For the purpose of working ou issions the sentence of transportatio is ordinarily equated with a definite p HC:15413 0 of 2025 hable on e IPC in terms of of terms shall be ment for ading is nt.' The scope is alculating does not eemed to r that a t shall be ecific and ion. IPC has Hon'ble Vinayak on Bench out the tation for te period, HC-KAR but it is for any elaborat imprison remissio such a the time of a Co from. 9.21. In Moh Court r imprison imprison 30 yea natural the cont the IPC fixes th twenty ye 9.22. In Ban Court, precede above Bench a 34 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of it is only for that particular purpose an any other purpose.' The Constitution B orated that the sentence of risonment 'is one of indefinite duration issions so earned do not in practice h a convict as it is not possible to pred time of his death.' This is a binding de Constitution Bench. It cannot be dep Mohinder Singh, the Hon'ble Sup rt reiterated, in unambiguous terms: risonment cannot be equivalent risonment for 14 years or 20 years or years, rather it always means the ral life.' This statement leaves no roo contention that a reference to Section IPC in a judgment, or that Section 57 s the duration of life imprisonmen nty years. Bangal @ Khoka, the Hon'ble Sup rt, after a comprehensive surve edent, concluded: 'We are bound b ve dicta laid down by the Consti ch and we hold that life imprisonment HC:15413 0 of 2025 e and not on Bench of life ation, the tice help predicate decision departed Supreme ms: 'Life lent to s or even he whole room for tion 57 of 57 itself, ment at Supreme rvey of d by the nstitution ent is not HC-KAR equivale or for petition dicta. 9.23. The su Section defining twenty consiste Suprem Mohind decision argume 9.24. A cont Crimina the abo gruesom original was no death, either. against service 57 of IP 35 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ivalent to imprisonment for fourteen for twenty years as contended by tioner.' This Court is more bound by submission of Sri. Pradeep Patil tion 57 of the IPC operates as a sent ning provision, fixing life imprisonme nty years, is directly contrary to sistent interpretation of the Ho reme Court in Gopal Vinayak Go hinder Singh and Bangal @ Khoka. T isions are binding on this Court. ment must be and is rejected. contextual reading of the judgmen inal Appeal No.1197/2008 also sup above interpretation. The case involve some murder of two innocent children inal sentence was death. This Court fou not the 'rarest of rare' case warra th, but did not treat it as a routine er. The judgment imposed a specific nst routine commutation and dir ice of the life sentence 'in terms of Se of IPC.' These directions reflect this C HC:15413 0 of 2025 en years by the d by this atil that entence- nment at y to the Hon'ble Godse, . These urt. The ment in supports volved the dren. The t found it arranting tine case ecific bar directed f Section is Court's HC-KAR intentio substan eligible not refle twenty ye the sen inconsis the evid 9.25. For the (i) by h Court in commut imprison shall ser of the I the sen term of direction imprison sentenc 10. Answer to Po is entitled to on the grou years of imp Section 57 o 36 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ntion that the accused must ser stantial minimum period before even ible for any remission consideration, th reflect an intention to cap the senten nty years. Reading the directions as ca sentence at twenty years would be w nsistent with the gravity of the offence evident purpose of the directions. the foregoing reasons, I answer Poin y holding that the judgment passed b rt in Criminal Appeal No.1197/2008, muting the death sentence to risonment and directing that the acc ll serve the sentence 'in terms of Sectio he IPC', cannot be construed as restr sentence of life imprisonment to a of twenty years of imprisonment. ction specifies the minimum period of a risonment; it does not convert or fix th tence as a twenty-year sentence. o Point No. (ii): Whether the petiti d to claim release from prison m round that he has completed tw imprisonment, by placing relianc 57 of the Indian Penal Code and HC:15413 0 of 2025 serve a en being they do ntence at s capping e wholly ence and Point No. d by this 08, while to life accused ection 57 estricting a fixed ent. The of actual ix the life etitioner merely twenty iance on and the HC-KAR judgment o Sukhdev Yad Delhi)? 10.1. Sri. Pra petitione served on 15 complet imposed IPC' sta entitled Hon'ble Yadav 10.2. Learned Yadav, twenty wholly remissio his sent end of principle case, si Section in subst which sh 37 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of t of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State (NC Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, submits that the petitioner ed twenty years of actual imprisonme 15.01.2025. He contends that pletion of twenty years, the sen osed by this Court 'in terms of Section ' stands fully served, and the petition tled to be released forthwith, exactly a 'ble Supreme Court directed in Suk av. rned counsel relies on Para 15.2 of Sukh av, which holds that 'on completion o nty years of actual imprisonment, lly unnecessary for the appellant to ission of his sentence on the premise sentence is a life imprisonment i.e. of his natural life.' He submits that ciple applies directly to the petitio , since this Court's direction 'in term tion 57 of IPC' is, according to him, ide ubstance to the direction 'Life imprison shall be 20 years' in Sukhdev Yada HC:15413 0 of 2025 Court in (NCT of for the ner has nment as t upon sentence tion 57 of itioner is tly as the Sukhdev Sukhdev on of the nt, it is t to seek mise that e. till the that this titioner's terms of , identical isonment adav. HC-KAR 10.3. He subm require for rem Board, contrary Crimina sentenc remissio 10.4. Sri. Pra the peti release submits provisio convict confined This li establish Vinaya Singh 10.5. The lea placed b misplace (i). He r entirely 38 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of submits that any other interpretation w ire the petitioner to make an applic remission before the Sentence Re rd, which would be unreasonable trary to the spirit of the judgmen inal Appeal No.1197/2008. Since tence has been served, the questio ission simply does not arise. Pradeep C.S., learned AAG, submits petitioner is not entitled to claim auto ase upon completion of twenty years ts that Section 57 of the IPC is n ision that mandates the release of vict after twenty years. Its operati fined to calculating fractions of punishm limited purpose of Section 5 blished by the Constitution Bench in ayak Godse and confirmed in Mohi and Bangal @ Khoka. learned AAG submits that the rel ed by the petitioner on Sukhdev Yad placed, as already submitted under He reiterates that Sukhdev Yadav is b rely on the specific language used b HC:15413 0 of 2025 ion would pplication Review ble and ment in ince the estion of mits that utomatic years. He is not a of a life ration is ishment. 57 is n Gopal ohinder reliance Yadav is der Point is based d by the HC-KAR High C which s without materia Crimina Sukhdev present direction 10.6. The lea prematu domain Section 473/474 remissio petitione writ of m 10.7. Under P petitione the gro imprison and Su proceed Point (i) 39 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Court in that case,'Life imprison ch shall be 20 years of actual imprison out consideration of remission' whi erially different from the language us inal Appeal No.1197/2008. The rat hdev Yadav cannot be imported into ent case by a strained reading o ction 'in terms of Section 57 of IPC.' learned AAG submits that the questi ature release lies within the excl ain of the appropriate Government u tion 432/433-A CrPC (now Sec /474 BNSS). In the absence of an ord ission by the appropriate Government tioner has no legal right to release, an of mandamus can be issued. er Point (ii), I must determine whethe tioner is entitled to claim release mere ground of completion of twenty yea risonment, relying on Section 57 of th Sukhdev Yadav. The analysis eed on the foundation already laid u t (i), namely, that the judgment in Cri HC:15413 0 of 2025 isonment isonment which is e used in ratio of into the g of the estion of exclusive nt under Sections order of ent, the , and no ether the erely on years of f the IPC is must id under Criminal HC-KAR Appeal sentenc 10.8. Section The pro punishm of puni reckone twenty of term purpose fraction to be c computi prison provisio determi complet 10.9. The Co Godse Court re life sen purpose held th particula 40 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of eal No.1197/2008 did not fix the tence at twenty years. tion 57 of the IPC must be analysed provision reads: 'Fractions of term ishment.—In calculating fractions of unishment, imprisonment for life sha oned as equivalent to imprisonmen nty years.' The marginal note — 'Frac erms of punishment' — is the key t ose of the provision. It applies only tions of terms of punishment are req e calculated, typically for the purpo puting remissions admissible under on rules or the relevant stat isions. It does not operate as a provi rmining when a life sentence s pleted. Constitution Bench in Gopal Vin se (Para 8) specifically addressed this rt referred to the practice of equatin sentence with a definite period 'fo ose of working out the remissions' that such equating is 'only for icular purpose and not for any HC:15413 0 of 2025 the life ysed first. terms of of terms shall be ment for 'Fractions y to the nly when required rpose of nder the statutory provision stands Vinayak this. The ating the 'for the ions' and for that ny other HC-KAR purpose operate fraction duration 57 to complet therefor Bench d 10.10. Para 9 instructi 'impassi sentenc natural appropr might n The Co concern the Co power t Governm We ca Governm a reaso with equ 41 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ose.' This restriction is plain: Sectio rates only for calculating remissions tions; it does not determine the a tion of the sentence. Reliance on Se to claim that the sentence has pleted upon serving twenty year efore, contrary to this binding Constit ch decision. 9 of Gopal Vinayak Godse is ructive. The petitioner therein mad assioned appeal' contending that if tence means imprisonment for the w ral life, he would be 'at the mercy o ropriate Government' which 'out of ht not remit the balance of his sente Constitution Bench acknowledged cern but held: 'The Constitution as w Code of Criminal Procedure confer er to remit a sentence on the exec ernment and it is in its exclusive provi cannot assume that the approp ernment will not exercise its jurisdicti asonable manner.' This reasoning ap equal force in the present case. HC:15413 0 of 2025 ction 57 ions and e actual n Section as been years is, nstitution is also made an if a life he whole cy of the of spite, entence.' ged this s well as nfer the executive province. propriate diction in g applies HC-KAR 10.11. In Moh Suprem rejected imprison on com imprison convict expecte life, sub appropr the Co imprison remissio amount alters th 10.12. In Ban Suprem Vinaya categori 'We ho equivale or for petitione entitled urged in 42 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Mohinder Singh (Para 27), the Ho reme Court specifically addressed cted the claim of a convict serving risonment to 'indefeasible right to re completion of either 14 years or 20 risonment.' The Court stated clearl vict undergoing life imprisonmen ected to remain in custody till the end subject to any remission granted b ropriate Government under Section 4 Code.' The expectation of natur risonment, subject only to exec ission, is the settled legal position unt of reliance on Section 57 of the rs this. Bangal @ Khoka (Para 17), the Ho reme Court, applying the ratio of ayak Godse and Mohd. Mu gorically rejected a similar claim and hold that life imprisonment is ivalent to imprisonment for fourteen for twenty years as contended by tioner.' The petitioner therein was tled to be released 'on any of the gro d in the writ petition so long as there HC:15413 0 of 2025 Hon'ble sed and rving life o release 20 years early: 'A ment is nd of his d by the n 432 of atural-life executive ition. No the IPC Hon'ble of Gopal Munna, and held: is not en years by the was not grounds ere is no HC-KAR order o Governm 10.13. On the have alr decisio Sukhde definitio shall b without complet complet present exists. years of life sen sentenc therefor 10.14. Para 1 petitione in conte address sentenc twenty convict 43 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of r of remission passed by the approp ernment in his favour.' the reliance placed on Sukhdev Yad e already held, under Point (i), that the ision is factually distinguishable. hdev Yadav, the sentence nitionally fixed at 'Life imprisonment w ll be 20 years of actual imprison out consideration of remission.' pletion of twenty years in that case wa pletion of a judicially-fixed sentence. I ent case, no such judicially-fixed sen ts. The petitioner has completed tw rs of imprisonment pursuant to a conti sentence, he has not completed tence. The ratio of Sukhdev Yadav efore, no application. 15.2 of Sukhdev Yadav, which tioner particularly relies upon, must be ontext. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ressing the specific situation where tence had already been judicially fixe ty years of actual imprisonment an vict had completed those twenty years HC:15413 0 of 2025 propriate Yadav, I t the said ble. In e was nt which isonment n.' The e was the e. In the sentence d twenty ontinuing eted the dav has, hich the t be read ourt was here the y fixed at and the ears. The HC-KAR observa the app because judicial be trans is a con fixed at 10.15. Accordin that th release he ha imprison mandat years; distingu of this c the Hon Godse Khoka 11. Answer to absence o restricting sentence o understood of the natu 44 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ervation that 'it is wholly unnecessar appellant to seek remission' was ause the sentence had been complete cial design. The same observation ransplanted into a case where the sen continuing life sentence and has not d at twenty years. rdingly, I answer Point No. (ii) by ho the petitioner is not entitled to ase from prison merely on the groun has completed twenty years risonment. Section 57 of the IPC doe date or authorise release after tw rs; the decision in Sukhdev Yada inguishable and not applicable to the his case; and the three binding decisio Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Vin se, Mohinder Singh and Banga ka, conclusively negate such a claim. to Point No. (iii): Whether, in of a specific judicial dire ng the duration of the sentenc e of life imprisonment must od as imprisonment for the remai natural life of the convict, subjec HC:15413 0 of 2025 ssary for as made pleted by n cannot sentence not been y holding to claim und that years of does not r twenty adav is the facts ions of Vinayak angal @ im. , in the direction tence, a ust be mainder bject to HC-KAR commutatio law? 11.1. Sri. Pra petitione general imprison incorrec case, th direction 57 of IP of the s judicial scope governe instead. 11.2. He sub recognis duration and tha general this Co No.1197 11.3. Sri. Prad the abs 45 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ation or remission in accordance Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, does not directly contend tha eral principle, life imprisonment m risonment for remainder of natural li rrect. His contention is that in the pr , this Court has given a specific ju ction (viz., the direction 'in terms of Se f IPC') that restricts and fixes the dur he sentence. He submits that this sp l direction takes the case outside e of the general principle, makin erned by the Sukhdev Yadav prin ead. submits that Sukhdev Yadav gnises that courts have the power to f tion of a life sentence at a specific that where such a direction exists eral principle does not apply. He argues Court's judgment in Criminal A 197/2008 contains such a direction. Pradeep C.S., learned AAG, submits th absence of a specific judicial dire HC:15413 0 of 2025 nce with for the that the t means al life, is e present c judicial f Section duration s specific tside the aking it principle itself to fix the c term, xists, the gues that l Appeal ts that in direction HC-KAR restrictin fixed te in acc imprison life of th is estab Gopal Hon'ble and Ban in Sukh present direction The gen sentenc natural 11.4. Point (i principle outcome sentenc a spec duration the rem 11.5. The ans and unb 46 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ricting the duration of a life sentence d term, the sentence must be unders accordance with well-settled law risonment for the remainder of the na of the convict. He submits that this prin tablished by the Constitution Benc al Vinayak Godse, reaffirmed by 'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Si Bangal@ Khoka, and is not departed Sukhdev Yadav. He submits that in ent case, there is no specific ju ction fixing the sentence at twenty ye general principle therefore applies, an ence is imprisonment for the remaind ral life. t (iii) raises a question of general ciple that has a direct bearing on ome of this case. The question: m ence of life imprisonment, in the absen pecific judicial direction restricting tion, be understood as imprisonmen remainder of the natural life of the con answer is provided by a long, cons unbroken line of decisions of the Ho HC:15413 0 of 2025 nce to a derstood, law, as e natural principle Bench in by the r Singh rted from t in the judicial ty years. , and the ainder of ral legal on the must a bsence of cting its ment for convict? onsistent e Hon'ble HC-KAR Suprem in Gopa sentenc imprison treated the wh convicte phrase ' this as any ana 11.6. The qua commut in Gopa legitima end befo commut Governm commut India or the pre 161 of t (c) a sentenc Sukhde 47 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of reme Court of India. The Constitution B opal Vinayak Godse (Para 8) declare tence of transportation for life risonment for life must prima faci ted as transportation or imprisonmen whole of the remaining period o victed person's natural life.' The use o se 'must prima facie be treated' estab as the default rule — the starting po analysis of life imprisonment. qualification 'unless the said senten muted or remitted by appropriate auth opal Vinayak Godse identifies the imate routes by which the sentence before the natural death of the convic mutation or remission by the approp rnment under the CrPC (now BNSS) mutation or remission by the Preside a or the Governor of the State in exerc prerogative powers under Articles 72 of the Constitution of India respective a specific judicial direction fixing ence at a definite term (as discuss hdev Yadav). In the absence of an HC:15413 0 of 2025 on Bench clared: 'A life or facie be ment for of the se of the tablishes point of ntence is authority' the only nce may nvict: (a) propriate SS); (b) sident of xercise of s 72 and tively; or xing the ussed in f any of HC-KAR these r remaind 11.7. In Moh Hon'ble principle equivale years or the who Court al pardons 161 of t of the review. 432 CrP power o power sentenc with the 11.8. In Bang was re imprison for four Hon'ble petitione 48 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of e routes, the sentence continues fo ainder of the convict's natural life. Mohinder Singh (Paras 26 and 27) 'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed ciple: 'Life imprisonment cannot ivalent to imprisonment for 14 years rs or even 30 years, rather it always m whole natural life.' The Hon'ble Sup rt also explained the constitutional sch ons and remissions under Articles 72 of the Constitution are prerogative po the executive, subject to limited ju ew. The power of remission under Se CrPC is also vested in the executive er of courts is to impose sentence er to subsequently alter or remit ence (except in specific circumstances the executive. Bangal @ Khoka (Para 17), the prin restated with the same clarity: risonment is not equivalent to imprison fourteen years or for twenty years. 'ble Supreme Court clarified that tioner therein would not be entitle HC:15413 0 of 2025 s for the 27), the ed this not be ars or 20 ys means Supreme scheme: s 72 and ve powers judicial r Section tive. The nce; the emit the nces) lies principle ity: 'life isonment ars.' The that the titled to HC-KAR release remissio Governm 11.9. It is als Constitu person liberty establish of the p life imp Article accordin namely, sentenc compete imprison whole n valid an of violat 11.10. Regardin case fall of a spe terms o already 49 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ase 'so long as there is no orde ission passed by the approp ernment in his favour.' also appropriate to note Article 21 o stitution of India, which guarantees th on shall be deprived of his life or per ty except according to proce blished by law. The continued incarcer e petitioner pursuant to a valid senten imprisonment is in full conformity cle 21 — it is deprivation of li rding to a procedure established by ely, the procedure of conviction encing under the IPC and CrPC petent court. The general principle tha risonment means imprisonment for le natural life is, therefore, constitutio and cannot be challenged on the gr iolation of Article 21. arding the petitioner's contention tha falls outside the general principle by vi specific judicial direction (the directio s of Section 57 of IPC'), this Cour ady held under Point (i) that the HC:15413 0 of 2025 order of propriate 21 of the s that no personal rocedure rceration ntence of ity with f liberty by law, tion and C by a that life for the tutionally e ground that this by virtue ection 'in ourt has the said HC-KAR direction the sen judicial Sukhde of sen imprison imprison of such therefor case. 11.11. Accordin that in direction sentenc imposed as imp natural remissio 12. Answer to petitioner h released up imprisonme remission o exclusive Government provisions a 50 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ction does not restrict or fix the durati sentence at twenty years. The sp cial direction exception recognise hdev Yadav (and discussed in the co sentences specifically worded as risonment which shall be 20 years of a risonment') does not apply in the abs uch specific language. The general prin efore operates in full force in the pr rdingly, I answer Point no. (iii) by ho in the absence of a specific ju ction restricting the duration of ence, the sentence of life imprison osed on the petitioner must be under imprisonment for the remainder o ral life, subject to commutation ission in accordance with law. to Point No. (iv): Whether r has any enforceable legal right t upon completion of twenty year ment, or whether the question n or premature release lies within e domain of the approp ent under the applicable statu ns and policy? HC:15413 0 of 2025 ration of specific nised in e context as 'Life of actual absence principle present y holding judicial of the isonment derstood r of his ation or her the ht to be years of stion of ithin the ropriate tatutory HC-KAR 12.1. Sri. Pra petitione enforcea complet He sub judicial No.1197 57 of t Yadav upon co a judicia It is no discretio been co 12.2. Sri. Pra the peti automa years. H and pre the app of the subject CrPC (n relies up 51 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, submits that the petitioner ha rceable legal right to be released pletion of twenty years of imprisonm submits that this right flows from cial direction in Criminal A 197/2008, read in conjunction with Se of the IPC and the principle in Suk av. He submits that the right to re n completion of the judicially-fixed per dicial right, not merely an executive fa s not a matter of remission or exec retion; it is a matter of the sentence h n completed. Pradeep C.S., learned AAG, submits petitioner has no enforceable legal rig matic release upon completion of tw rs. He submits that the power of rem premature release is vested exclusive appropriate Government under Section he CrPC (now Section 473 of the BN ject to the constraints of Section 4 C (now Section 474 BNSS). He extract s upon these provisions. HC:15413 0 of 2025 for the r has an ed upon sonment. from the Appeal h Section Sukhdev o release period is ve favour. executive ce having mits that l right to f twenty mission usively in ction 432 e BNSS), n 433-A racts and HC-KAR 12.3. Section Section has be offence, any tim conditio suspend the wh which h 12.4. The use the BNS purely Governm automa release. 12.5. The lear Singh, that a indefeas either 1 submits this m petitione Review 52 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of tion 473(1) of the BNSS (correspondi tion 432(1) CrPC) reads: 'When any p been sentenced to punishment fo nce, the appropriate Government ma time, without conditions or upon ditions which the person sentenced acc pend the execution of his sentence or whole or any part of the punishme ch he has been sentenced.' use of the word 'may' in Section 473( BNSS makes the exercise of the p ly discretionary with the appro ernment. The convict does not have matic or absolute right to remissio ase. learned AAG relies on Para 27 of Mohi , which states: 'there is a misconce a prisoner serving life sentence ha feasible right to release on completi er 14 years or 20 years imprisonmen mits that the present case involves pre misconception being raised by tioner. He submits that the Sen iew Board, when it considers HC:15413 0 of 2025 onding to y person t for an may, at pon any accepts, or remit hment to 473(1) of e power propriate have an ission or ohinder onception has an letion of ent.' He precisely by the Sentence ers any HC-KAR applicat in accor statutor empt or 12.6. Point ( whether right to twenty prematu domain 12.7. As held petitione automa imposed year se IPC doe years ( means natural collective existenc automa 12.8. The sta prematu 53 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of lication for premature release, must d ccordance with the applicable policy an utory provisions, and the Court cannot t or substitute that exercise of discreti t (iv) requires this Court to deter ther the petitioner has an enforceable t to automatic release upon completi nty years, or whether the questio ature release lies within the excl ain of the appropriate Government. held under Points (i), (ii) and (iii) tioner has no enforceable legal rig matic release, because: (a) the sen osed is life imprisonment and not a tw r sentence (Point i); (b) Section 57 o does not mandate release after tw rs (Point ii); and (c) life imprison ns imprisonment for the remainde ral life (Point iii). These three fin ctively and conclusively exclude tence of an enforceable legal righ matic release. statutory scheme governing remission ature release of life convicts is Sec HC:15413 0 of 2025 st do so y and the nnot pre- retion. etermine able legal pletion of stion of exclusive (iii), the right to sentence a twenty- 7 of the r twenty isonment inder of findings ude the right to ssion and Sections HC-KAR 432, 43 473, 47 as follow appropr power t time, w 433/474 Governm imprison imprison fourteen imposes imprison convictio of the appropr powers person imprison 12.9. In the p under S which punishm Section period o 54 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of , 433 and 433-A of the CrPC (now Sec , 474 and 475 of the BNSS). The sche ollows: Section 432/473 BNSS vests i ropriate Government the discretio er to suspend or remit the sentence, a , with or without conditions. Se /474 BNSS vests in the approp ernment the power to commute risonment to rigorous or s risonment for a term not exce en years. Section 433-A/474 oses a restriction: where a sentenc risonment for life has been impose viction for an offence for which death i the punishments provided by law, ropriate Government shall not exercis ers of release or commutation unles on has served at least fourteen yea risonment. he present case, the original conviction er Sections 302 and 364A IPC, bo h provide for death as one of ishments. Therefore, Section 433-A C tion 474 BNSS applies, and the min od of actual imprisonment before rem HC:15413 0 of 2025 Sections cheme is sts in the retionary e, at any Section propriate ute life simple xceeding 4 BNSS tence of osed on th is one law, the xercise its nless the years of ction was both of of the A CrPC / minimum remission HC-KAR can eve Howeve No.1197 twenty Section eligible he had imprison 12.10. Having for eligi crossed ineligibi make a remissio Howeve having released still con accorda account whether prematu Governm 55 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of even be considered is fourteen y ever, as held, this Court in Criminal A 197/2008 modified this threshold nty years by its direction 'in term tion 57 of IPC.' Thus, the petitioner wa ible for even consideration of remission had served twenty years of a risonment. ing now served twenty years, the thre eligibility to apply for remission has sed. The petitioner has crossed igibility to eligibility. He is now eligib e an application for premature relea ission to the appropriate Governm ever, eligibility to apply is different ing an enforceable legal right to ased. The appropriate Government consider the application on its meri rdance with applicable policy, taking unt all relevant factors. The de ther to remit the sentence or ature release remains with the approp ernment. HC:15413 0 of 2025 n years. al Appeal hold to terms of r was not sion until f actual threshold has been ed from ligible to elease or ernment. ent from t to be nt must erits, in king into decision or grant propriate HC-KAR 12.11. The pow statutor coupled reasona Court in can ens reasona cannot the rele between and exe constitu and the 12.12. Accordin that: (a legal complet (b) The release appropr statutor petitione thresho imprison prematu 56 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of power of remission is constitutionally utorily vested in the executive. It is a p pled with a duty to exercise it fairly onably, as held by the Hon'ble Sup rt in Mohinder Singh (Para 27). The ensure that this power is exercised f onably and in accordance with law, not itself exercise the power by dire release of the convict. This distin een ensuring fair exercise of the p exercising the power itself, is stitutional boundary between the jud the executive. rdingly, I answer Point No. (iv) by ho : (a) The petitioner has no enforc l right to automatic release pletion of twenty years of imprisonm The question of remission or prem ase lies within the exclusive domain o ropriate Government under the appli utory provisions and policy. (c) tioner, having crossed the min shold of twenty years of a risonment, is now eligible to apply ature release/remission to the approp HC:15413 0 of 2025 nally and s a power airly and Supreme he Court ed fairly, but it directing istinction, e power is the judiciary y holding forceable e upon sonment. remature in of the pplicable (c) The minimum actual pply for propriate HC-KAR Governm applicat applicab 13. Answer to continued in completion can be said issuance of release? 13.1. Sri. Pra petitione incarcer of twent and un attentio where t cannot appellan the con from 0 submits petitione and the Section complet 57 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ernment, which shall consider lication on its merits in accordance licable law and policy. to Point No. (v): Whether d incarceration of the petitioner ion of twenty years of imprisonm said to be illegal, so as to warran of a writ of mandamus directing Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, submits that the cont rceration of the petitioner after comp enty years of actual imprisonment is i unconstitutional. He draws the C ntion to Para 15.4 of Sukhdev Ya re the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: 'T not be any further incarceration o ellant herein from 09.03.2025 onwa continuous incarceration of the app 09.03.2025 onwards was illegal. mits that the same logic applies to tioner, since he has completed twenty the sentence was specified 'in term tion 57 of IPC', the continued detention pletion of twenty years is illegal. HC:15413 0 of 2025 er such nce with her the er after sonment rant the cting his for the continued mpletion t is illegal Court's Yadav, d: 'There of the nwards... appellant gal.' He s to the nty years terms of tion post HC-KAR 13.2. Learned detentio Court u Constitu writ of third r forthwit principle mandam detained 13.3. Sri. Pra the con not illeg to a va compete subsistin the sent complet continue analogy as in specifica fully u sentenc 58 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of rned counsel submits that since ntion is illegal, the writ jurisdiction o rt under Articles 226 and 227 of stitution of India is directly attracted, of mandamus must issue directing d respondent to release the petit hwith. He relies on the well-establ ciple that a writ of habeas corpu damus may be issued when a pers ined without lawful authority. Pradeep C.S., learned AAG, submits continued incarceration of the petition illegal. The petitioner is detained pur valid warrant of commitment issued petent court, pursuant to a valid sisting sentence of life imprisonment. sentence of life imprisonment has not pleted, commuted, or remitted, tinued detention is entirely lawful. logy with Sukhdev Yadav is misconce in that case the sentence had cifically fixed at twenty years and had undergone. No such completio tence has occurred in the present case. HC:15413 0 of 2025 ince the n of this of the ed, and a cting the petitioner tablished orpus or person is mits that titioner is pursuant ued by a valid and nt. Since not been ed, the ful. The onceived, ad been had been etion of ase. HC-KAR 13.4. The lea mandam perform present the thir The dut petitione warrant lawfully therefor 13.5. Point (v continue this que given to 13.6. A dete authorit warrant sentenc maintain the de statutor satisfied detained commitm 59 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of learned AAG submits that a wr damus can be issued only to compe ormance of a mandatory public duty. I ent case, there is no mandatory du third respondent to release the petiti duty of the third respondent is to hol tioner in custody pursuant to the rant of commitment, and that duty is ully performed. No writ of manda efore, can or should issue. t (v) requires determination of whethe tinued incarceration is illegal. The answ question flows from the answers al n to Points (i) through (iv). etention is illegal when it lacks ority, when there is no valid court ord rant authorising the detention, or whe tence pursuant to which the detenti ntained has been fully undergone, or detention violates a constitutiona utory provision. None of these conditio sfied in the present case. The petition ined pursuant to a valid warran mitment, pursuant to a valid and subs HC:15413 0 of 2025 writ of mpel the ty. In the y duty on etitioner. hold the the valid y is being ndamus, ether the nswer to s already ks legal order or when the ention is or when ional or ditions is titioner is rrant of ubsisting HC-KAR sentenc compete Appeal been co detentio 13.7. The reli Para 15 express reasons and (ii). been imprison and the year se after the fixed at was hel such tw sentenc twenty but do Therefo illegal. 60 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of tence of life imprisonment passed petent court and affirmed in Cri eal No.1197/2008. The sentence ha n completed, commuted, or remitted ntion is therefore lawful. reliance placed by the learned couns 15.4 of Sukhdev Yadav is specificall ressly addressed and rejected for ons elaborately discussed under Poin (ii). In Sukhdev Yadav, the sentence n fixed at twenty years of a risonment by a specific judicial dire the convict had completed that tw r sentence. The continued incarcer r the sentence was specifically and jud d at twenty years and fully undergone held to be illegal. In the present cas twenty-year sentence was fixed. tence is a continuing life sentence. nty years served are part of the sen do not constitute the whole sent refore, the continued incarceration is al. HC:15413 0 of 2025 ed by a Criminal has not tted. The unsel on ically and for the Points (i) ence had f actual direction, twenty- rceration judicially one, that case, no xed. The nce. The sentence sentence. n is not HC-KAR 13.8. For a w must de perform correspo perform failure Point (i legal complet prerequ foundat The writ 13.9. It must mandam whose s substan exercisin commut Constitu Governm exercise this Cou no powe by assu that bel 61 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of a writ of mandamus to issue, the petit t demonstrate: (a) a clear legal right t ormance of a specific act; and ( esponding legal duty in the responde orm that act; and (c) the respond re to perform that duty. As held u t (iv), the petitioner has no enforc l right to automatic release pletion of twenty years. Since the equisite legal right is not established dation for a writ of mandamus is ab writ cannot issue. ust also be noted that issuing a w damus directing the release of a co se sentence is validly subsisting wou stance and effect, amount to this rcising the power of remission mutation, a power vested by stitution and the statutes in the exec ernment and not in the judiciary. Suc rcise would be ultra vires the jurisdicti Court in writ proceedings. This Cour ower to direct the release of a life co assuming to itself the power of rem belongs to the appropriate Governmen HC:15413 0 of 2025 petitioner ht to the d (b) a ndent to pondent's ld under forceable e upon the first hed, the s absent. a writ of a convict would, in is Court ion and by the executive Such an diction of ourt has e convict remission ment. HC-KAR 13.10. This Co judicial sentenc Court's is to en and tha to subs sentenc the det and the violated continue 13.11. For the by hold the peti of impri of man release. 14. Answer to P interference and 227 of relating to release and appropriate 62 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Court is also guided by the princip cial restraint in matters of cri tencing and execution of sentences. rt's role, in the context of writ jurisdi o ensure that the law is applied cor that fundamental rights are protected substitute its discretion for that o tencing court or the executive. As lon detention is pursuant to a valid sen the prisoner's fundamental rights ar ated, this Court does not interfere wit tinued execution of the sentence. the above reasons, I answer point No holding that the continued incarcerati petitioner after completion of twenty prisonment is not illegal, and that no mandamus can be issued directing ase. to Point No. (vi): What is the scop nce by this Court under Articles of the Constitution of India in ma to sentence remission, prema and executive powers exercised by iate Government? HC:15413 0 of 2025 inciple of criminal ces. The risdiction, correctly cted, not t of the s long as sentence s are not with the t No. (v0 ration of nty years t no writ cting his scope of cles 226 matters emature d by the HC-KAR 14.1. Sri. Pra petitione ample j of the legality issue a the que remissio question enforcin submits writ juri 14.2. He sub direction for relea the enfo function case, ac a directi 14.3. Sri. Pra while th Articles In ma prematu 63 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Pradeep Patil, learned counsel for tioner, submits that this Court has ful le jurisdiction under Articles 226 and he Constitution of India to examine lity of the petitioner's detention an e appropriate directions. He submits question before the Court is not on ission or executive discretion, it stion of interpreting a judicial direction rcing the legal right flowing from i mits that this question is squarely withi jurisdiction of this Court. submits that where a Court has give ction, whether expressly or by implica release upon completion of a specific pe enforcement of that direction is a ju tion, not an executive one. The pr , according to him, involves enforcing rection. Pradeep C.S., learned AAG, submits le the High Court's writ jurisdiction u cles 226 and 227 is wide, it is not unlim matters of sentence remission ature release, the Court's jurisdicti HC:15413 0 of 2025 for the s full and and 227 mine the and to mits that t one of it is a ction and m it. He ithin the given a plication, ic period, a judicial present cing such mits that on under nlimited. ion and diction is HC-KAR supervis ensure t accorda the exe its jud Governm should b 14.4. He subm been no appropr applicat detentio nothing upon. 14.5. The sco Articles India i empowe or writs corpus, and ce includin of fund purpose 64 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ervisory and review-based, the Cour ure that the appropriate Government a rdance with law, but cannot itself exe executive power of remission or subs judgment for that of the approp ernment in deciding whether a co uld be released. submits that in the present case, ther n no application for remission before ropriate Government, no order on lication, and no illegality in the cont ntion. In such circumstances, the ing for this Court's writ jurisdiction t scope of this Court's writ jurisdiction u cles 226 and 227 of the Constitutio a is unquestionably wide. Article owers this Court to issue directions, o rits, including writs in the nature of ha us, mandamus, prohibition, quo war certiorari, to any person or auth ding the Government, for the enforce fundamental rights and for any ose. Article 227 vests in this Cour HC:15413 0 of 2025 ourt can nt acts in exercise ubstitute propriate convict there has efore the on such continued there is on to act ion under tution of icle 226 s, orders of habeas warranto authority orcement y other ourt the HC-KAR power o tribunal 14.6. Howeve does no exercise Constitu the thr courts a assigned sentenc sentenc and the is spec appropr Presiden Court, in arrogate 14.7. In the of this extends interfere continue to a val corpus 65 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of er of superintendence over all courts unals within its territorial jurisdiction. ever, the breadth of Article 226 jurisd s not mean that this Court is entitle rcise all governmental powers. stitution carefully distributes power a three branches of government, and rts are required to act within the do gned to them. In matters of cri tences, the execution and modificatio tences are matters governed by sta the power to remit or commute sente pecifically and exclusively vested in ropriate Government or ident/Governor under Articles 72/161 rt, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ca gate to itself the power of remission. context of the present case and ma this nature, this Court's writ jurisd nds to the following permissible form rference: (i) examining whether tinued detention of the convict is pur valid court order, if not, a writ of ha us may issue; (ii) examining whethe HC:15413 0 of 2025 urts and risdiction ntitled to rs. The r among and the domain criminal cation of y statute, entences d in the the 161. This n, cannot matters risdiction forms of her the pursuant f habeas ether the HC-KAR appropr to cons accorda mandam the app order o remissio vitiated order m directed a judicia as was d 14.8. In the p that: (a a valid issue); before question consider passed question not a ju Sukhde None interven 66 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ropriate Government has failed or re consider an application for remissio rdance with statutory procedure, if damus may issue directing considerat application; (iii) examining whethe r of the appropriate Government ission application is arbitrary, mala fid ted by non-application of mind, if so r may be quashed and fresh consider cted; (iv) giving effect to the completi dicially-fixed sentence by directing rel as done in Sukhdev Yadav. he present case, this Court has already : (a) the continued detention is pursua alid life sentence (so no habeas c e); (b) there is no application for rem re the appropriate Government (s stion of the Government having faile sider); (c) no order of remission has sed by the appropriate Government (s stion of quashing); and (d) the senten a judicially-fixed twenty-year sentenc hdev Yadav category does not ap e of the permissible forms of rvention is attracted in the present cas HC:15413 0 of 2025 r refused ission in if so, a eration of ether an nt on a a fide, or if so, the ideration pletion of release, eady held rsuant to s corpus remission (so no failed to has been nt (so no ntence is tence (so t apply). of writ case. HC-KAR 14.9. This Co direction 16 of circulati and Uni convict of his context specifica like the continui Governm 473/474 any ear 14.10. The sco present confirm clarify petitione release; for pre petitione consider time, w against 67 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of Court, however, does take note o ction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Sukhdev Yadav, which directe ulation to all Home Secretaries of S Union Territories to ascertain whethe vict has remained in jail beyond the p his sentence. This direction was in text of cases where sentences had cifically fixed by judicial direction. For the present, where the sentence tinuing life sentence, the approp ernment's power of remission under Se /474 BNSS is the prescribed mechanis early release. scope of this Court's jurisdiction in ent case is, therefore: (a) to examine firm the legality of the detention ( ify the legal position regarding tioner's eligibility to apply for prem ase; and (c) to direct that if an applic premature release is made by tioner, the appropriate Government sider it on its merits within a reaso , without being bound by the dire inst 'routine commutation at fourteen y HC:15413 0 of 2025 e of the rt in Para rected a of States ther any he period s in the ad been For cases nce is a propriate r Section anism for n in the mine and n (b) to ing the remature pplication by the ent shall asonable direction en years' HC-KAR (which the pa cannot, the auto 15. Answer to P 15.1. Having this Cou order to findings togethe prayer immedia granted 15.2. This Co was not IPC doe years; imprison (d) the automa incarcer writ jur release 68 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of ich direction has been rendered spen passage of twenty years). This not, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, automatic release of the petitioner. to Point No. (vii): What Order? ing answered all Points for Determina Court must now determine the approp r to be passed in this writ petition. ings on all six preceding Points, ther, clearly indicate that the pr er, for a writ of mandamus directin ediate release of the petitioner, cann ted. Court has held that: (a) the life sen not fixed at twenty years; (b) Sectio does not mandate release after tw rs; (c) life imprisonment m risonment for the remainder of natura there is no enforceable legal righ matic release; (e) the cont rceration is not illegal; and (f) this C jurisdiction does not extend to dire ase in these circumstances. HC:15413 0 of 2025 spent by is Court on, direct mination, propriate tion. The s, taken primary cting the annot be sentence ection 57 r twenty means tural life; right to continued is Court's directing HC-KAR 15.3. In the r pass the (i) The w (ii) The p Respo from (iii) It is judgm No.11 the s does impri The s on t rema unles appro Presid (iv) The p of ac judgm No.11 69 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of he result and for the foregoing reaso s the following ORDER he writ petition is DISMISSED. he prayer for a writ of mandamus dire espondent No.3 to release the petit om prison forthwith is REJECTED. t is clarified that the direction in dgment of this Court in Criminal A o.1197/2008, that the accused shall he sentence 'in terms of Section 57 of oes not restrict the sentence of prisonment to a period of twenty ye he sentence of life imprisonment imp n the petitioner is a sentence for emainder of his natural life, and remai nless commuted or remitted by ppropriate Government or resident/Governor in accordance with l he petitioner, having served twenty f actual imprisonment as stipulated i dgment of this Court in Criminal A o.1197/2008, has crossed the mini HC:15413 0 of 2025 easons, I directing petitioner in the l Appeal all serve 7 of IPC', of life ty years. imposed for the mains so by the r the ith law. ty years ed in the l Appeal minimum HC-KAR thres for re entitl prem appro applic State (v) If an appro Board indivi into a perio of th the applic again comp Appe consi comp reaso days 70 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of hreshold specified by this Court for elig r remission consideration. He is accord ntitled to submit an application remature release or remission to ppropriate authority in accordance pplicable statutory provisions and tate's remission policy. f and when such application is made ppropriate Government/Sentence Re oard shall: (i) consider the same o dividual and case-specific merits; (ii) to account all relevant factors includin eriod of actual imprisonment, the co f the petitioner, the nature of the off he interests of the victims, and pplicable policy; (iii) not treat the dire gainst 'routine commutation ompletion of fourteen years' in Cri ppeal No.1197/2008 as an absolute b onsideration of any application made ompletion of twenty years; and (iv) p easoned order thereon within ninety ays of receipt of the application. HC:15413 0 of 2025 eligibility cordingly tion for to the nce with and the ade, the Review e on its (ii) take uding the conduct offence, and the direction after Criminal te bar to ade after v) pass a ety (90) HC-KAR (vi) Nothi be c that prem shall applic doma (vii) Pendi dismi Prs List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2 71 NC: 2026:KHC: WP No. 25250 of othing in this judgment constitutes or e construed as an expression of op hat the petitioner's application remature release, if made, ought to hall be granted. The decision on any pplication remains entirely within omain of the appropriate Government. ending applications, if any, ismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDAR JUDGE o.: 2 HC:15413 0 of 2025 s or shall f opinion ion for to be or any such thin the ent. y, stand DARAJ)