The Supreme Court has declared that convicts serving fixed-term life sentences, such as 20 years, are automatically entitled to release upon completion of their term. This ruling clarifies that once a convict has served the fixed duration of their life sentence without remission, they are not required to apply for remission before the Sentence Review Board. The court emphasized that the Sentence Review Board cannot deny the convict's release after the judicial sentencing has been served.
The decision came as the court ordered the release of Sukhdev Yadav, also known as Pehalwan, who was convicted in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case and sentenced to a 20-year life term. Yadav completed his sentence on March 9, 2025, and subsequently filed a plea for release. However, the Sentence Review Board rejected his request, citing his conduct during imprisonment.
Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan, constituting the Supreme Court bench, firmly stated that in cases of fixed-term life imprisonment, release must occur immediately after the sentence is completed. The court criticized authorities for prolonging the detention of convicts beyond their stipulated term, cautioning that such practices could result in convicts spending their entire lives in jail.
The Supreme Court underscored a previous order from the prior month, which addressed Yadav's release plea. The court clarified that a convict serving a fixed-term life sentence, as opposed to a full life term, does not need a release order after completing the sentence. A remission order from the Sentence Review Board is only mandatory for convicts sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Delhi government, had argued that a life term signifies imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life, implying that Yadav could not be automatically released after 20 years. However, senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, representing Yadav, countered that the sentencing order explicitly specified a 20-year term, which concluded on March 9, thereby nullifying any legal basis for continued detention.
The Supreme Court emphasized that when a life sentence is explicitly fixed to a specific term, such as 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission, the convict must be released upon completion of that term, provided other sentences run concurrently. The court asserted that it is unnecessary for the convict to seek remission after completing the fixed term, as remission was not considered during the sentencing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the Home Secretaries of all states and union territories to inspect their prisons and ensure compliance with the order, releasing all convicts who have served their fixed-term sentences. The court expressed concern for prisoners who might be languishing in jail despite completing their sentences, mandating their immediate release.
This ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and fairness within the judicial system, ensuring that convicts are not unduly detained beyond their stipulated punishment. It clarifies the legal position regarding fixed-term life sentences, affirming that completion of the fixed term automatically entitles a convict to be freed.
