2025 INSC 240

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(HON’BL SANJIV KHANNA, CJI. HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR, J. AND HON’BLE K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.)

N.K. TANEJA

Petitioner

VERSUS

MAHARAJ SINGH

Respondent

Civil Appeal No. OF 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.4978 of 2021) With Civil Appeal No. OF 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) No. of 2025) (@ Diary No.7063/2021)-Decided on 12-02-2025

Criminal, Cr PC

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 473– Constitution of India, Articles 72, 161 – Premature release - Remission of sentence – Whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission? – Held that where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy - In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission - When the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate Government contains such policy guidelines, the aforesaid direction will apply - Directed those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months - District Legal Services Authorities shall also monitor implementation of the same - For this purpose, the District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful in terms of the above - The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.

(Para 8, 10 and 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 473 – Constitution of India, Articles 72, 161 – Premature release - Remission of sentence – Nature of conditions imposed while granting remission – Held that the Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission - Consideration of various factors, which are mentioned in the paragraph 13 above by way of illustration, is necessary before finalizing the conditions - The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates himself in the society - The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission - The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed.

(Para 13 and 21)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 473 – Constitution of India, Articles 72, 161 – Premature release - Remission of sentence – Revocation of remission - Whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted? – Held that an order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict - An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons.

(Para 16, 21)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 473– Constitution of India, Articles 72, 161 – Premature release - Remission of sentence – Recording of reasons - Whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanent remission? - Held that order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons - The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison - The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities - It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.

(Para 17, 18 and 21)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 473 – Constitution of India, Articles 72, 161 – Premature release - Remission of sentence – Necessity of having policy – Held that power under Section 432 of the CrPC is to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner - If there is neither a policy nor any Regulations for exercising the power under Section 432 of the CrPC, there is a possibility that the authorities will not exercise their power in a fair and rational manner - To ensure that the power is not exercised in an arbitrary manner, all the states that do not have an exhaustive policy on this aspect must come up with an exhaustive policy within two months from today - It can be either a separate policy or it can be incorporated into the prison manuals.

(Para 10 and 21)

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, though served, has not appeared. He is, thus, set ex parte. The facts of the case are as follows:

o Respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, who was working as a Reader in the Psychology Department of the appellant, Chaudhary Charan Singh University[For short, “University.”] , Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, since 14.11.1990, applied for Extra Ordinary Leave[For short, “EOL.”], that is, leave without pay, on 25.08.2001.

o On 25.11.2001, he made another application for a grant/extension of EOL. Leave was granted and extended up to 31.05.2002.

o Belatedly, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, on 01.08.2003, again applied for EOL by seeking extension up to 26.12.2003. No orders were passed on the said application; leave was not extended.

o On 22.08.2005, the University sent a show-cause notice to respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, asking him as to why the matter should not be referred to the Executive Council, as respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, had not joined his post and was not undertaking his duties as a Reader in the University.

o Vide another letter dated 22.09.2005, the University addressed the Head of the Department (Psychology), stating that respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, had been continuously absent since 25.08.2000 and that there was no provision to further extend the leave. Even thereafter, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, did not join duty nor did he send any request letter stating that he wanted to join duty.

o On the other hand, he wrote another letter on 09.02.2006, seeking an extension of leave up to 24.08.2006. He also prayed for a grant of a promotion. o In the Executive Council’s meeting held on 04.07.2007, a resolution was passed terminating the services of respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh.

o On or about 17.08.2009, while respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh was in the United States of America, he challenged the order of his termination before the Chancellor of the University, that is, the Governor, State of Uttar Pradesh, by way of a representation. This representation came to be dismissed on 17.08.2009. o Aggrieved, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, filed Writ-A No. 2450/2010 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017.

o The impugned judgment primarily records that the University had not followed the applicable statute and had not conducted an enquiry and, therefore, termination of the services of respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the resolution dated 04.07.2007 passed by the Executive Council and the order passed by the Chancellor of the University, that is, the Governor, State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 17.08.2009, were set aside.

4. Assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the University in terminating the services of respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, on the ground that he had abandoned his services, we feel that the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law; if necessary, after holding a disciplinary enquiry. The facts of the case are writ large and show that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, failed to report for duty and was travelling and moving around abroad. Even today, he has not appeared before this Court, despite service of notice. Later on, he pursued contempt proceedings before the High Court, on account of non-compliance with its order.

5. During the course of the hearing, it was stated that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, has been paid his dues under the Contributory Provident Fund[For short, “CPF.”] Scheme, including the share of the University.

6. We are not even made aware as to whether respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, took up employment anywhere outside India after he had taken EOL way back on 25.08.2000. In case respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, has taken up employment outside India and is working or has set up a business outside India, he clearly abandoned his services with the University. We are informed that the High Court had directed respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, to file an affidavit in this respect, which was not filed.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we feel that the matter should be closed by this Court, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017. At the same time, we direct that the University shall not recover the CPF already paid to respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh. The contempt proceedings[Contempt Application (Civil) No. 512/2021] pending before the High Court will obviously come to an end and be treated as closed, in terms of this order.

8. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. Leave granted.

10. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the order passed today in the connected matter, that is, Civil Appeal @ SLP @ Diary No. 7063/2021.

11. Proceedings in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 512/2021 will be treated as closed.

------