Question

On which grounds remission can be denied?

• A. On the discretion of the appropriate government
• B. On the central government's discretion
• C. On the state government's discretion
• D. None of the above
• A. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, 2003 7 SCC
• B. Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath, AIR 1961 SC 334
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. The application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 could be only before the Government of the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate Government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred
• B. A consideration for remission must be by way of an application under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which has to be made by the convict or on his behalf. In the first instance in as much as a person serving a life sentence cannot seek remission be noted whether there is compliance with Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 must unless fourteen years of imprisonment has been completed
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Only (A)
• A. The expression "may" indicate that it is optional for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
• B. The expression "may" mean that government can seek the opinion of any judge, not necessarily the presiding judge
• C. The expression "may" must be interpreted as "shall", making it mandatory for the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge
• D. The expression "may" allow the presiding judge to refuse providing an opinion on the application for remission
• A. not less than seven years
• B. not less than ten years
• C. not more than twenty years
• D. seven years

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

In legal studies, the concept of "remission" refers to the act of reducing the severity of a punishment without annulling the offence or removing the conviction. The decision to grant or deny remission typically involves several factors and is guided by law, with the discretion resting on the appropriate governmental authority. Based on the constitutional and legal framework, remission can be denied on the following grounds:

• The Discretion of the Appropriate Government: The authority to grant remission primarily lies with the government, which is empowered to make a decision based on various factors, such as the severity of the crime, behavior of the convict, and the socio-political context. Article 161 and 72 of the Indian Constitution delegate this authority to the state and central governments respectively, depending on the nature of the punishment and the jurisdiction under which the offence falls.
• Public Interest: Retaining public order and the collective well-being of society may warrant the denial of remission if releasing a convict poses a threat or if it undermines public confidence in the justice system.
• Nature and Gravity of the Offence: Serious crimes, especially those involving violence against persons, may result in denial, as releasing such individuals prematurely might be contrary to justice and public sentiment.
• Victim's Rights: Respect for the victim and consideration of their family's feelings play a role. The justice system seeks to balance the rights of convicts with those of victims, ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice.

The solution to the question provided is:
"On the discretion of the appropriate government". This option correctly identifies the main authority responsible for decisions related to granting or denying remission.

Answer 2

To determine which case is not related to remission, let's explore the context of remission:

Remission generally relates to the reduction or cancellation of a penalty.

In the context of law, remission refers to decreasing the term of punishment, which is an action taken in consideration for compassionate reasons or because of reforms in the accused’s behavior.

The provided comprehension excerpt emphasizes that remission concerns reformative justice, offering a second chance to the convict when it's deemed in the interest of justice. A remission could bring about a reduction in sentence, potentially balancing the liberty of the convict and the rights of victims.

Cases	Relevance to Remission
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj, 2003 7 SCC	Unknown, as it doesn't detail dealing with remission
Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath, AIR 1961 SC 334	Unknown, as it doesn't detail dealing with remission
Both (A) and (B)	Both cases are not known for remission context
Neither (A) nor (B)	Assumes one or both are related to remission, which doesn't seem to be explicit

Based on the information provided and lacking explicit connection to remission from the cases mentioned, the option concluding that “Both (A) and (B)” do not relate to remission seems correct.

Answer 3

To entertain an application for remission under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973, certain factors need to be considered. These factors are outlined in two parts, (A) and (B), which must both be acknowledged according to the correct answer "Both (A) and (B)".

Explanation:

(A) The application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 can only be entertained by the government of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted. This government is referred to as the "appropriate Government". It is crucial to note that this application cannot be made to any other government under whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant might have been transferred post-conviction or where the offense took place.

(B) In considering an application for remission, it must be initiated by the convict or on his behalf as per Section 432 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Importantly, when the individual is serving a life sentence, remission is not possible unless there is compliance with Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which mandates that at least fourteen years of imprisonment must have been completed.

Both these conditions (A and B) must be satisfied for an application of remission to be entertained, as they ensure the legitimacy and appropriateness of the remission process within the legal framework.

This understanding is reinforced by the context provided in the comprehension regarding the balance of rule of law and personal liberty, as highlighted in the case of Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India.

Answer 4

In the Bilkis Bano Case, the interpretation of the word "may" in Section 432 (2) of Cr.P.C. was a matter of judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the term "may" in the section, which indicates the government's duty to seek the opinion of the presiding judge, should be interpreted as mandatory or merely discretionary. The court clarified that the word "may" in this context must be read as "shall," thereby imposing a mandatory obligation on the government to seek the opinion of the presiding judge before deciding on an application for remission. This interpretation ensures that the judge's opinion is not an optional consideration but a necessary prerequisite, reinforcing the rule of law and safeguarding the procedural rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgement underscores the balance between the rights of victims and convicts, emphasizing that any decision regarding remission must respect the rule of law and the principles of justice.

Answer 5

The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 introduces a modification to the commutation of a sentence of imprisonment for life. The previous wording in the Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) allowed for the commutation of such a sentence with an alternative of 'not exceeding fourteen years' or 'fine'. This language has been replaced with 'not less than seven years' in the new enactment.

This change reflects an adjustment in the minimum sentencing requirements for the commutation of life imprisonment, potentially aligning with principles of justice like reformation and rehabilitation rather than mere punishment, as highlighted in the comprehension provided. The extract from Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. Union of India further emphasizes the philosophy that punishment should aim at the betterment of the individual, seeking a balance between justice for victims and second chances for convicts.

Hence, when considering the nature of commutation and its implementation under the new code, the provision seeks to ensure that imprisonment sentences commuted are not reduced arbitrarily but must meet a minimum threshold, namely 'not less than seven years', to encapsulate both deterrence and potential for rehabilitation.