The appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, along with other charges. After being sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008, he applied for remission under Section 432(1) of the CrPC. Following an order from the Supreme Court directing the State of Gujarat to consider his application for remission, the government granted remission on 15th September 2023, but imposed four conditions for his release.

The appellant was required to behave "decently" for two years after release, subject to sureties from respectable members of society.

If he committed any cognizable offence or caused harm to property or citizens, the remission could be revoked, and he would serve the remaining sentence.

The appellant challenged these conditions on the grounds of their vagueness and potential to lead to arbitrary decisions by the state.

The primary issue in this case was whether the conditions imposed on the remission were legally permissible and whether they violated the appellant's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Vagueness of the "Decent Behaviour" Clause: The appellant's counsel argued that the term "decently" used in the first condition was overly vague. Decency is subjective, and different people may interpret it differently. This ambiguity, it was argued, could lead to arbitrary revocation of remission, violating the constitutional principles of fairness and equality.

Automatic Revocation for Alleged Offences: The second condition provided that the remission would be automatically cancelled if the appellant committed a cognizable offence or inflicted serious harm after release. The appellant’s counsel contended that such a condition would lead to punishment based on mere allegations, without considering the merits of the case, which could result in arbitrary decisions and a violation of the principle of natural justice.

On the other hand, the State argued that it had the power to impose conditions on remission, citing Section 432(1) of the CrPC, and emphasized that the power to grant remission was discretionary, not a right. The State also pointed to the appellant’s acceptance of these conditions and the sureties furnished, asserting that no interference was necessary.

The Court first reiterated the discretionary nature of remission under Section 432(1) of the CrPC. The section grants the appropriate government the power to remit the whole or part of a sentence, either with or without conditions, and requires the convict to accept those conditions for the remission to be effective. The Court also noted that the remission process should be informed by fairness, reasonableness, and public interest considerations.

Condition 1: The Requirement for "Decent Behaviour"

The Court found the first condition, requiring the appellant to behave "decently" for two years after release, to be manifestly arbitrary. The term "decently" was not defined in any legislation, and its interpretation could vary widely, making it an unreliable basis for imposing conditions. The Court held that such vague conditions could lead to the arbitrary cancellation of remission, undermining the convict’s constitutional right to liberty under Article 21. Therefore, the Court struck down this condition, ruling that a condition must be clear and enforceable to be legally valid.

Condition 2: Automatic Revocation for Breaching Conditions

The Court also scrutinized the second condition, which authorized the automatic revocation of remission if the appellant was involved in any cognizable offence or caused harm. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Shaikh Abdul Azees v. State of Karnataka (1977), where it was clarified that remission is not automatically revoked upon the mere registration of a cognizable offence. The appropriate government must assess whether the breach is substantial enough to warrant revocation, and it cannot take automatic action based solely on the registration of an offence.

The Court emphasized that any action to cancel remission must follow the principles of natural justice. A convict must be provided with a show-cause notice, outlining the grounds for the proposed revocation and giving the convict an opportunity to respond. The Court clarified that minor or baseless allegations should not result in the automatic cancellation of remission, and each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

Discretionary Power of Remission: The Court confirmed that the remission of sentences under Section 432 of the CrPC is discretionary and not a matter of right. However, the conditions imposed must be reasonable, clear, and not arbitrary.

Reasonableness of Conditions: Conditions attached to remission must pass the test of reasonableness. Vague or overly broad conditions can lead to arbitrary decisions and must be avoided. Any condition that lacks clarity can infringe upon the rights of the convict.

Natural Justice in Revocation of Remission: The Court held that the cancellation of remission cannot be automatic. The convict must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any action is taken to revoke remission, following the principles of natural justice.

Role of Allegations in Revocation: The mere registration of a cognizable offence is not sufficient to revoke remission. There must be credible evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the seriousness of the breach must be considered before taking such drastic action.

The Supreme Court's ruling serves as an important reminder of the need for clarity and fairness in the imposition of conditions for the remission of sentences. The Court’s intervention ensures that such conditions are not arbitrary, that the rights of convicts are protected, and that any revocation of remission is carried out in a just and reasonable manner. This judgment strengthens the application of constitutional principles in the context of sentence remission and provides a framework for ensuring that executive powers are exercised in a fair and accountable manner.