Supreme Court: Trial Courts Cannot Deny Convicts Right to Remission

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Judgments Supreme Court Says Trial Courts Cannot Deny Convicts Right To Remission X Supreme Court limits trial courts’ power over restricting remission. The Supreme Court held that remission is a constitutional and statutory right, ruling that only high courts and the Supreme Court can impose life imprisonment without remission. The Supreme Court has held that the right to seek remission is both a constitutional and a statutory right, and cannot be taken away or curtailed by an inferior court such as a sessions court. A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said that any sentence of life imprisonment qualified to exclude remission is beyond the jurisdiction of a trial court and can only be directed by a constitutional court. Court was hearing an appeal filed by Amjad Khan, who was convicted of murdering his wife and two children. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the three murders, but specified that the sentence would mean imprisonment “till the death of the accused”. The Supreme Court modified the sentence, holding that the trial court could not have imposed such a restriction on the convict’s right to seek remission. Why did the Supreme Court modify the life imprisonment sentence? The Bench said a trial court does not have the authority to qualify a sentence of life imprisonment to mean imprisonment till the death of the accused, as such a direction effectively curtails the statutory and constitutional rights of a convict to seek remission. Court pointed out that the power to impose a modified sentence beyond the standard life term, which excludes the possibility of remission, lies exclusively with the high court and the Supreme Court as constitutional courts. “However, the qualification of the ‘life imprisonment’ with ‘till death of the accused’ is not warranted in terms of Section 302 of the IPC,” the Bench said. It noted that over the years, the high court and the Supreme Court, while substituting a death penalty with life imprisonment, have exercised discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case by qualifying the sentence to mean a certain number of years without remission. “In other words, instead of imposing death penalty, the high court or this Court directs that the accused-convict must complete a certain number of years before he can seek release,” Court said. Such sentences, it added, can be imposed only by constitutional courts such as the high court or the Supreme Court. How does a life sentence affect the right to remission? The Bench said that by directing that Amjad Khan’s life imprisonment would mean imprisonment till his death, the trial court had effectively denied him the opportunity to seek remission. Court observed that remission is permissible under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, which allow an appropriate application to be made before the President of India or the Governor of the State respectively. The convict would also have a statutory right to seek remission by making an application under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], read with its relevant provisions, Court said. The Bench relied on earlier judgments, including Kiran v State of Karnataka (2025) , where the Supreme Court had held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire life of the convict, subject to remission and commutation under the CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. Court had also held that these rights cannot be curtailed by a sessions court. What happened in the Amjad Khan case? According to the prosecution, on the night of August 9, 2018, Khan’s wife and two children were found dead with injuries at their home. An FIR was registered against Khan 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 S