Court says delay may invite contempt action
The Supreme Court has warned the Gujarat government that it may face strict penal consequences, including suo motu contempt proceedings, if it fails to decide premature release applications within the timeline fixed under its policy.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan issued the warning while hearing the case of a life convict whose plea for premature release remained pending even after he completed the required period of incarceration under the State policy.
The Court said:
“We need not reiterate the fact that the right for premature release is not a fundamental right, but it does take the nature of a vested right in a prisoner, once the State Government exercises its discretion and frames a policy. However, in matters which relate to life and liberty of a person, the Constitutional Principles have to be invoked, for the reason that every day beyond the period which in law has been prescribed, and in the present case, a statutory law relating to the period of incarceration, the person would be considered to be in illegal custody and rightly so, the Government had directed that the process be started three months before the date on which the prisoner would be completing the 14 years of actual incarceration.”
It further clarified:
“It is further clarified that in future, if the above stipulation as per the policy itself is not implemented in its entirety and mandatorily, the same shall entail strict penal orders from this Court, including, but not limited to, initiation of suo motu contempt against all the persons who do not act in terms of the policy or if the final order does not come latest by the day on which the convict completes 14 years of actual incarceration.”
State’s explanation rejected
The Bench noted that the petitioner had completed the minimum period required for consideration under the premature release policy on December 12, 2025. Even though the Court had granted more than three months from that date, the State had still not taken a final decision.
On March 16, 2026, the State told the Court that the competent committee meets only four times a year and that the petitioner’s case was under process and would be placed before it.
The Bench found that explanation “absolutely unacceptable.”
Policy requires advance processing
The Court referred to the State’s circular dated July 9, 1992, issued under Section 432 of the CrPC. It noted that the circular requires authorities to begin the premature release process three months before a prisoner completes 14 years of imprisonment.
According to the Bench, the policy leaves no room for delay after eligibility arises. Authorities must complete the process in advance and pass the final order on the very day the convict becomes eligible.
Court stresses liberty concerns
The Bench said premature release may not be a fundamental right, but it becomes a vested right once the State frames a policy governing it.
The Court then underlined the liberty implications of such delay. It observed that when authorities keep a prisoner in jail beyond the legally prescribed period, the continued custody becomes illegal.
Although the Court said it could have initiated proceedings against all responsible officials, it decided not to do so at this stage.
Chief Secretary asked to ensure compliance
The Supreme Court listed the matter on April 7, 2026. It also directed that the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of Gujarat so the State can ensure compliance.
The Bench added that if the State fails to place a final decision on record by the next hearing date, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary or Secretary of the Home Department, and the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat, must remain personally present before the Court and show cause why proceedings should not begin against them.
Background of the case
The Gujarat High Court had upheld the petitioner’s conviction in 2023 under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC, along with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
The case arose from a December 9, 2011 incident in Ahmedabad. In that incident, the accused assaulted his wife with a hammer and caused fatal head injuries. By the time the High Court delivered its judgment, the appellant had already undergone more than 11 years of sentence.
Supreme Court’s earlier directions on remission delays
The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed concern over delays in remission and premature release matters.
In March 2025, it issued a contempt notice to the Delhi Home Secretary for failing to decide a remission case despite earlier assurances. The Court noted at that time that authorities often act only when contempt proceedings loom.
In February 2025, the Court directed States to consider premature release cases as soon as convicts become eligible, even when no formal application has been filed. It stressed that administrative delay should not keep eligible prisoners in custody.
Again, in November 2025, the Court expressed displeasure over the failure of several States to implement remission and premature release policies. It then directed High Courts to monitor compliance through suo motu proceedings.
Case No.: SLP(Crl) No. 855 / 2026
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid v. State of Gujarat
Also Read: SC Allows second S28A Compensation Plea.
