Remission: Supreme Court Says Authorities Must Decide Pleas Without Undue Delay

The Supreme Court has said that in cases involving long-term incarceration, the competent authority is required to consider applications for premature release or remission of convicts expeditiously and without undue delay, in accordance with the prevailing remission policy and statutory provisions.

A Bench of Justices R Mahadevan and Manmohan granted two convicts, Mohan Babu and Palani, liberty to apply for remission, noting that they had already spent more than 14 years and 20 years in prison respectively. Court directed the competent authority to decide their applications within three months.

At the same time, the Bench declined to interfere with their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. It observed that where the trial court's conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the high court after a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Supreme Court is generally not inclined to interfere with such concurrent findings.

Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by Mohan Babu and Palani, who had challenged their conviction and life sentence in a dacoity case.

Both appellants were convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Tindivanam, in 2006. They were found guilty of various offences connected with the case and were awarded different sentences, including life imprisonment, with all sentences directed to run concurrently.

Their appeals were dismissed by the high court on July 2, 2008, which upheld both the conviction and sentence. They thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

"Having considered the matter in its entirety and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, as affirmed by the high court," the bench said.

Subheading:

Relief granted to the appellants

While refusing to interfere with the conviction, the court granted relief in view of the prolonged incarceration undergone by the appellants.

In Mohan Babu's case, the bench noted that he had already undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment and permitted him to approach the appropriate government by filing an application for remission, if he had not already done so.

Court referred to its February 18, 2025 order passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, in which it had directed all States and Union Territories to consider applications for premature release or remission as expeditiously as possible and without undue delay.

Relying on that order, the bench directed that if Mohan Babu's remission application is filed or is already pending, the competent authority must decide it strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present appeal, within three months.

Court also clarified that the interim bail already granted to Mohan Babu would continue until the competent authority passes an appropriate order on his remission application.

In Palani's case, the bench noted that he had undergone more than 20 years of incarceration and similarly granted him liberty to apply for remission under the applicable statutory provisions and prevailing remission policy. It directed the competent authority to decide his application within three months.

Taking note of the length of his imprisonment, Court further ordered that Palani be released on interim bail, if he is not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. It clarified that the interim bail would remain in force until the competent authority decides his remission application.

Case Title: Mohan Babu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justices R Mahadevan and Manmohan

Date of Judgment: July 10, 2026