A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has quashed a letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) dated July 9, 2025, which had rejected the State of Uttarakhand’s recommendation for the premature release of a life convict who had spent more than twenty-two years in incarceration.


Background


The petitioner, Rohit Chaturvedi, was convicted by the Special Judge, Dehradun under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated October 24, 2007, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2012 and his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2013.


Since the case was investigated by the CBI, the State of Uttarakhand, while recommending premature release, was required under Section 477(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to obtain the concurrence of the Central Government. The MHA, however, declined to concur with the State’s recommendation through a brief letter dated July 9, 2025 — without assigning any substantive reasons.


Court Held


The Court first held that the MHA’s letter was a non-speaking and cryptic order that failed to disclose any reason for rejecting the State’s recommendation. The letter merely stated that the “Competent Authority is not concurred with the proposal” — without discussing the petitioner’s conduct, the applicable remission policy, or any adverse material against him.


“Recording of reasons is not an empty formality, it is a safeguard against arbitrariness and ensures transparency, fairness, and accountability in decision-making,” the bench observed.


The Court further declined to remand the matter to the MHA, holding that since the Union of India had already fully articulated its stand before the Court on merits — relying solely on the heinous nature of the crime — sending the matter back would be an empty formality and would only prolong the petitioner’s incarceration unnecessarily.


On Heinousness as the Sole Ground


In a significant ruling on remission jurisprudence, the Court categorically held that the heinousness of the offence cannot be the sole basis for denying remission.


“Remission is not an extension of the sentencing process, but a distinct executive function concerned with the present and future — namely, the prisoner’s conduct, evidence of reformation, and prospects of reintegration into society,” the bench stated. It added that gravity of the offence stands exhausted at the stage of sentencing, and reconverting remission into a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt betrays the criminal justice system’s reformative ideal.


Invoking Plato’s philosophy — as also referenced in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481 — the Court held that the true legal test for remission is whether the purpose of punishment continues to subsist, assessed through the offender’s conduct and record in custody.


Parity with Co-Accused


The Court also accepted the petitioner’s plea of parity. Co-accused Amarmani Tripathi had been granted premature release by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on August 24, 2023, after undergoing approximately seventeen years of actual imprisonment and twenty years with earned remission. The petitioner, having served more than twenty-two years, was denied similar relief without any cogent or discernible distinguishing reason — which the Court held violated the constitutional requirement of fairness and non-arbitrariness.


Relief Granted


Since the petitioner was already on interim bail granted by the Court on May 21, 2025, the Court directed that his surrender shall not be required and that the respondents shall treat him as having been prematurely released in terms of the present order.


The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.


Case Title: Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others


Citation: 2026 INSC 490
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Decided on: May 15, 2026