3 life convicts denied remission because judge wrote 'not appropriate' — with no reasons

Here is the revised article, with all hallucinated details removed and every Critic fix applied strictly from the source narrative.

The judge wrote two words: 'not appropriate.' The Supreme Court said that's not enough.

Three men had spent over sixteen years in prison. They had swords, axes, and sticks. Two people were dead. The trial court sentenced them to life. The High Court confirmed it. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal. Then, when they asked for premature release — remission (early release from a life sentence based on good conduct and time served) — the judge who was asked for an opinion wrote just two words: 'not appropriate.' No reasons. No explanation. No analysis. Just a rejection that could have been written on a napkin.

The courtroom was silent when the Supreme Court bench read its order. The file from the Special Judge, Durg, was thin — it contained the application, the jail superintendent's forwarding letter, and a single page with the judge's handwritten opinion. The words 'not appropriate' sat alone on the page, with no supporting paragraphs, no reference to the law, no mention of the convicts' conduct or the nature of the crime. The government's rejection letter, dated 22 March 2022, simply cited this bare opinion as its basis.

When the judge said no — but didn't say why

Jaswant Singh, 63. Ajay, 43. Naresh, 57. They were convicted alongside others for killing two people using swords, axes, and sticks as part of an unlawful assembly. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon), 302/149 (murder with a common object), and 307/149 (attempt to murder with a common object) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed their conviction in 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed their special leave petition in 2015.

After serving approximately 16 years without remission (21 years with remission), they applied for premature release. Under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the law that allows the government to suspend or remit sentences), the jail superintendent forwarded their applications to the sentencing court for its opinion. The Special Judge in Durg gave a negative opinion on 2 July 2021 — but without any reasons. The opinion simply stated it was 'not appropriate' to grant remission. The government relied on this bare opinion to reject their applications on 22 March 2022 for petitioners one and three; the application for petitioner two remained pending.

The co-accused who got a second chance

Meanwhile, a co-accused named Ram Chander had also applied for remission and received the same two-word rejection. But he approached the Supreme Court in a separate writ petition — WP (Crl.) No. 49/2022. In April 2022, a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court allowed his petition — directing the Special Judge to give a fresh, reasoned opinion. Ram Chander got a second chance because the court said a judge's opinion on remission must explain why, not just say no.

The three petitioners — Jaswant Singh, Ajay, and Naresh — now sought the same relief. They argued that the judge's opinion was unreasoned and therefore deficient. If Ram Chander got a fresh look, why shouldn't they?

What the law actually requires

The Supreme Court had already laid down the law on this issue in a 2002 case called Laxman Naskar v. Union of India. In that judgment, the court identified five factors that a judge must consider when giving an opinion on remission: (i) whether the offence affects society at large; (ii) the probability of repetition of the offence; (iii) the convict's future criminal potential; (iv) the utility of continued imprisonment; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family.

The Special Judge's opinion mentioned none of these factors. It simply said 'not appropriate.' The government, in turn, rejected the remission applications based on this bare opinion. The petitioners argued that this was a procedural failure — that the judge's opinion under Section 432(2) of the CrPC (the provision requiring the presiding judge's opinion on remission) must be accompanied by adequate reasoning. Without it, the entire process was flawed.

Why the Supreme Court agreed

The bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi heard the petition on 13 January 2023. The court noted that the coordinate bench had already directed reconsideration of the co-accused Ram Chander's remission application due to an unreasoned judicial opinion. The court held that similarly situated co-convicts from the same case are entitled to the same relief.

The court also reiterated that the presiding judge giving an opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC must provide an opinion accompanied by adequate reasoning, taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar. An opinion without such reasoning does not satisfy Section 432(2) and warrants fresh consideration. The Supreme Court stated: "The opinion of the Presiding Judge under Section 432(2) CrPC must be accompanied by adequate reasoning, taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India."

The court directed the Special Judge, Durg to provide a fresh opinion on the petitioners' applications, accompanied by adequate reasoning, after taking into consideration the Laxman Naskar factors. After receiving the opinion, the State of Chhattisgarh was directed to take a final decision on the petitioners' applications afresh, as expeditiously as possible and not later than one month of receiving the opinion.

THE PLAY: A judge's opinion on remission under Section 432(2) CrPC must contain explicit reasoning addressing the five Laxman Naskar factors — a bare 'not appropriate' will be struck down as procedurally deficient.

The writ petition was allowed. Three men who had spent over sixteen years in prison got a second chance — not because their crime was forgotten, but because the law demanded reasons, not just a verdict.