Judge said 'not appropriate' to free life convicts. Supreme Court says that's not enough.

A judge rejected their freedom with just three words: 'not appropriate.' The Supreme Court just said that's illegal.

Three men had been in prison for sixteen years. They had killed two people with swords, axes, and sticks. They knew they had done something terrible. But the law gave them a chance to ask for freedom after serving a long sentence. So they asked. The Special Judge in Durg, Chhattisgarh, looked at their applications and wrote back a single line: it was 'not appropriate' to let them go. No reasons. No explanation. Just three words. The state government used that one-line opinion to slam the door shut. The men had nowhere left to go but the Supreme Court.

When three words became the only wall between them and freedom

Jaswant Singh (63), Ajay (43), and Naresh (57) were part of a group of eight people convicted of murdering two individuals using swords, axes, and sticks. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (the laws that punish murder committed by a group acting with a common intention), along with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (a law that provides harsher punishment for crimes against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes).

The conviction was confirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in 2013, and then by the Supreme Court itself in 2015. By the time they applied for premature release — a process called remission (the power of the government to reduce or end a sentence before its full term) — they had served about 16 years of actual imprisonment, or 21 years if you count the time off for good behaviour that prisoners earn.

The co-accused who walked free first

Here is where the story gets interesting. One of their co-accused, a man named Ram Chander, had been in the exact same situation. He too had been convicted of the same murders. He too had served a long sentence. He too had been told by the same Special Judge that remission was 'not appropriate.' But Ram Chander had done something the others had not: he had filed a writ petition (a formal request to a higher court to correct a legal error) directly in the Supreme Court.

In April 2022, the Supreme Court looked at Ram Chander's case and found the one-line opinion unacceptable. The Court directed the Special Judge to give a fresh opinion — one that actually explained why remission should or should not be granted. The Court told the judge to follow a set of guidelines laid down in an earlier case called Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 595.

Ram Chander got his second chance. Jaswant, Ajay, and Naresh did not — until they filed their own petition.

What the Laxman Naskar guidelines actually say

The Laxman Naskar case gave the courts a checklist. When a judge is asked whether a life convict should be released early, the judge must consider five things:

• Whether the offence was so violent that it shocked the collective conscience of society
• Whether the convict is a threat to society
• Whether the probability of the convict committing another crime is high
• Whether the convict has shown reform during the time spent in prison
• Whether continued confinement would serve any purpose

The Special Judge in Durg had not considered any of these factors. The opinion simply said 'not appropriate' — a conclusion without a journey. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, found this unacceptable.

Why a bare opinion is not an opinion at all

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the law that governs how criminal cases are run in India) gives the government the power to remit — or reduce — a sentence. But before the government can act, it must ask the presiding judge of the court that convicted the person for an opinion. That is Section 432(2).

The word 'opinion' in a legal context does not mean a gut feeling. It means a reasoned conclusion — a conclusion that shows the judge has applied his or her mind to the facts and the law. A judge who writes 'not appropriate' has not applied his or her mind to anything. The Supreme Court has said this many times before, but it keeps happening anyway.

The Court noted that the state government's law department had relied entirely on these bare opinions to reject the applications. The government did not ask for reasons. It did not send the applications back. It simply accepted the three words and said no.

What the Supreme Court ordered

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the Special Judge, Durg to provide a fresh opinion on the applications of Jaswant Singh, Ajay, and Naresh — this time with adequate reasoning that takes into consideration the five factors from Laxman Naskar. The State of Chhattisgarh must then take a fresh decision on the applications, and it must do so within one month of receiving the judge's new opinion.

The Court was careful to note that it was not ordering the men's release. It was ordering a proper process. If the Special Judge, after applying the Laxman Naskar factors, still concludes that remission is not appropriate — and gives reasons for that conclusion — the government may still reject the applications. But the decision must be based on reasons, not on a hunch.

The deeper problem this case exposes

This is not an isolated incident. Across India, sentencing courts routinely give one-line opinions on remission applications. The judges are overworked. The files pile up. Writing a detailed opinion on every application from every life convict seems like a luxury. But the Supreme Court has now made it clear: it is not a luxury. It is a legal requirement.

The case also highlights a broader issue with how remission decisions are made. The power to remit a sentence under Section 432 is exercised by the state government, but the government almost always defers to the sentencing judge's opinion. If that opinion is empty, the entire process becomes empty. The convict is left with a decision that looks like it was made by a rubber stamp.

THE PLAY: If you are representing a life convict whose remission application has been rejected based on a judge's opinion that contains no reasons, file a writ petition in the High Court or Supreme Court citing Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and demand a fresh, reasoned opinion under the Laxman Naskar factors.

The three men are still in prison. But for the first time in sixteen years, someone has actually read their file and asked: why?