Supreme Court Limits Trial Court Remission Power in India

• The Supreme Court of India has ruled that trial courts cannot deny convicts the right to seek remission.
• Only constitutional courts, such as High Courts and the Supreme Court, possess the authority to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of remission.
• This decision stemmed from the case of Amjad Khan, whose trial court sentence of 'imprisonment till death' was modified by the Supreme Court.
• Remission is recognized as both a constitutional right under Articles 72 and 161, and a statutory right under Section 432 of the CrPC (now Section 473 of BNSS).
• The ruling clarifies judicial jurisdiction, ensuring that stringent penalties curtailing remission are imposed only by higher courts.

The apex court underscored that the ability to seek remission is both a constitutional and a statutory entitlement, which cannot be abrogated or diminished by lower judicial bodies, such as sessions courts.

The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a significant ruling that curtails the authority of trial courts to restrict a convict's right to seek remission. This decision clarifies that the power to impose a life sentence without the possibility of remission rests exclusively with constitutional courts, namely the High Courts and the Supreme Court itself. The apex court underscored that the ability to seek remission is both a constitutional and a statutory entitlement, which cannot be abrogated or diminished by lower judicial bodies, such as sessions courts.

A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih explicitly stated that any attempt by a trial court to qualify a life imprisonment sentence to preclude remission falls outside its jurisdictional bounds. This means that while a trial court can impose a life sentence, it cannot add conditions that effectively deny the convict the opportunity to apply for early release through remission. This judgment reinforces the principle that stringent penalties, particularly those that remove fundamental rights like remission, must originate from the highest judicial authorities, thereby limiting trial court remission power in India.

This pivotal clarification by the Supreme Court arose from an appeal filed by Amjad Khan, who had been convicted of a heinous crime involving the murder of his wife and two children. The prosecution alleged that on the night of August 9, 2018, Khan's wife and two children were found deceased with injuries at their home, leading to an FIR being registered against him on August 10, 2018, at Police Station Chakrabhata in Bilaspur district under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

The trial court, in sentencing Amjad Khan for these three murders, imposed a life imprisonment term for each, but crucially added a stipulation that the sentence would mean incarceration “till the death of the accused.” This specific phrasing effectively sought to deny Amjad Khan the opportunity for remission. The Supreme Court intervened to modify this aspect of the sentence, asserting that the trial court lacked the authority to impose such a restriction, thereby clarifying the scope of Amjad Khan's Supreme Court remission.

The Supreme Court's pronouncement firmly establishes that the right to remission is deeply rooted in India's legal framework. This right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 72, which grants the President of India the power to pardon, reprieve, respite, or remit punishment, and Article 161, which bestows similar powers upon the Governor of a State. Beyond these constitutional provisions, a statutory right to seek remission is also available to convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is important to note that this statutory provision has since been re-codified as Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reflecting ongoing legal reforms.

The bench further elaborated that while life imprisonment generally signifies incarceration for the convict's entire natural life, this is always subject to the possibility of remission and commutation as outlined in the CrPC and the aforementioned constitutional articles. The court referenced previous judgments, including *Kiran v State of Karnataka (2025)*, which similarly affirmed that a sessions court cannot curtail these fundamental rights. This comprehensive legal context underscores why the power to impose life imprisonment without remission in India is reserved for higher courts, ensuring that such a significant curtailment of rights is handled at the appropriate judicial level, aligning with Article 72 161 Constitution India remission and Section 432 CrPC remission principles.

This ruling carries significant implications for the Indian criminal justice system, particularly concerning sentencing practices for life imprisonment. It unequivocally clarifies that the authority to impose a modified sentence, such as a life term that explicitly excludes the possibility of remission, rests solely with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Historically, these constitutional courts have exercised such discretion, often when commuting a death penalty to life imprisonment, by specifying a minimum number of years to be served before a convict can seek release. This practice ensures that while the death penalty is avoided, a substantial period of incarceration without the prospect of early release is still mandated.

The judgment serves as a critical directive for all judicial stakeholders. Criminal defense lawyers now have a clear basis to challenge past life imprisonment sentences where trial courts may have attempted to deny remission, as such clauses are now explicitly deemed beyond their jurisdiction. Conversely, prosecutors and judges must ensure that future sentencing adheres strictly to this principle, recognizing that only constitutional courts possess the power to impose life sentences that explicitly exclude remission. This distinction is crucial for maintaining judicial hierarchy and upholding the constitutional and statutory rights of convicts in India.

Criminal defense lawyers should review past life imprisonment sentences where trial courts attempted to deny remission, as such clauses are now explicitly deemed beyond their jurisdiction and can be challenged. Prosecutors and judges must ensure that only constitutional courts (High Courts, Supreme Court) impose life sentences that explicitly exclude remission, clarifying the proper forum for such stringent penalties.

Source: Reporting based on recent Supreme Court proceedings.