Court Upholds Sovereign Assurance, Denies Earned Remissions as Basis for Early Release
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, who sought his immediate release from custody based on the calculation of earned remissions. The Court upheld the 25-year sentence cap as directed by the Supreme Court, based on sovereign assurances provided by the Government of India to the Government of Portugal during Salem's extradition.
The division bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata reiterated that the 25-year sentence period cannot be reduced by earned remissions under prison rules. The Court observed that the remissions are administrative and do not affect the substantive sentence imposed by the Court. The bench emphasized that the petitioner's attempt to include earned remissions to shorten the fixed 25-year term is legally untenable.
Salem, extradited from Portugal in 2005, was convicted in two high-profile TADA cases related to the Bombay Bomb Blast and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court, considering the assurances given to Portugal, commuted his life sentences to a total of 25 years, with the directive that the Government exercise statutory powers for remission one month before the sentence completion.
The Court noted that Salem's current contention for reduction through earned remissions contradicts the spirit of the Supreme Court's directive. It clarified that any reduction below the 25-year period requires formal remission orders as per Sections 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which can only be considered one month before the completion of the fixed term.
The bench further clarified that the petitioner’s sentence, which commenced on November 11, 2005, will complete in November 2030, and any remission exercise by the Government should be initiated accordingly. The petition was thus dismissed as premature and devoid of merit.
This judgment reinforces the binding nature of international treaty obligations and clarifies the scope of judicial and administrative remissions in cases involving extradition assurances.
Bottom Line:
Extradition - Sentence reduction - Petitioner's claim for reduction of the fixed 25-year sentence based on earned jail remissions is legally unsustainable, as the 25-year cap imposed by the Supreme Court arises from sovereign assurances given under an extradition treaty.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 432, 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883287
