Karnataka High Court: Fixed-Term Life Sentence Beyond 20 Years Does Not Bar Remission | Authorities Must Reconsider Release Applications Under Prison Rules
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a writ petition seeking remission of sentence for three detenues convicted of murder. The Court directed the prison authorities and the Life Convicts Release Committee to reconsider their remission applications in accordance with the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. The Court further ordered that the applications be decided afresh within two weeks, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order.
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Deepa Angadi, is the wife of Siddappa (CTP-0898), daughter-in-law of Mallavva (CTP-0906), and sister-in-law of Sidlingappa @ Mudakappa (CTP-0811). She approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to grant remission to the said detenues.
The detenues had been convicted in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2006 by judgment dated 16 December 2008. They were found guilty of offences under Sections 302, 114 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially sentenced to death, their punishment was modified in appeal to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 21 years with a fine.
The petitioner submitted that the detenues had undergone significant periods of incarceration. As on 1 April 2023, Siddalingappa had served 17 years 4 months and 12 days, Siddappa had served 18 years 2 months and 28 days, and Mallavva had served 15 years 6 months and 13 days.
Applications for remission were filed on behalf of the detenues. However, these were rejected by the authorities on the basis that remission is not a matter of right under Rule 164(v) of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the rejection was contrary to law, since the sentence awarded did not specifically bar remission or parole. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10464 of 2017), which clarified that the policy prevailing on the date of conviction would apply, and that absence of an express ineligibility clause meant remission could be considered.
The counsel also pointed to the pre-2002 remission policy, where life imprisonment was treated as 20 years, and release was possible after 14 years of incarceration, subject to remissions. She argued that the detenues were entitled to have their applications examined under this legal framework.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that under Section 63(2)(e) of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, remission was discretionary. He contended that since the sentence imposed was a fixed term of 21 years, the detenues could not seek remission until the full term was completed.
After hearing both sides, the Court framed the issues for determination:
- Whether a sentence for a specified term disqualifies a prisoner from remission.
- Whether a sentence of life imprisonment of 20 years or more bars remission.
- What order was to be passed.
The Court then proceeded to address each issue in detail.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded that Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, provides that remission aims at reformation of a prisoner and functions as an incentive for discipline and good conduct. The Court extracted the rule in full and stated: “Remission system aims at the reformation of a prisoner. The scheme is intended to ensure prison discipline and good conduct on the part of the prisoners and to encourage them to learning and better work culture, with the prospect of their early release from prison as an incentive.”
The Court further observed: “Remission is a concession, which can be granted to the convict prisoners by the State Government or Director General of Prison or Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison. This concession is subject to subsequent withdrawal or forfeiture or revocation by the State Government or Director General of Prison or Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison.”
Addressing the specific question of fixed-term sentences, the Court stated: “Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 164 would indicate that the sentences of all prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life or to more than 20 years of imprisonment in aggregate shall be deemed to be a sentence of imprisonment for 20 years. Thus, whether the sentence is for 20 years or more it is treated as imprisonment for life.”
The Court noted that sub-rule (v) clarified remission was not a matter of right, but did not impose an embargo on consideration. Justice Govindaraj stated: “There is no particular embargo under Rule 164 that if a sentence is for 20 years or more or even for a particular period more than 20 years, the detenue would not be entitled for remission.”
The Court stated that since the appellate judgment modifying the death penalty to 21 years’ imprisonment did not expressly bar remission or parole, such relief could not be denied. The Judge recorded: “When the judgment is silent on that, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit thereof would have to be provided to the detenue and as such, merely because there is a sentence of 21 years, it cannot be said that detenue will not be entitled for remission due to the sentence being for a fixed period in excess of 20 years.”
The Court also referred to prior precedent, stating: “Upon conviction if any person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which one of the punishments is death… such prisoner shall be released from prison only if he has spent 14 years in prison from the date of conviction, which would indicate that after a period of 14 years, remission could be offered.”
Finally, in relation to the detenues’ conduct, the Court recorded the State’s submission that their behaviour had been satisfactory, with no further offences committed during incarceration. Justice Govindaraj concluded: “There is no particular embargo under sub-rule (v) of Rule 164 for grant of remission. What it only implies is that the detenue / prisoner would have to qualify the requirements for grant of remission which would have to be considered in a proper and judicious manner by the concerned authorities.”
In conclusion, Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the following order: “The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the applications of the detenues without reference to or influenced by the order dated 21.8.2025 and if found qualified grant remission to the detenus aforesaid namely Siddappa (CTP-0898), Mallavva (CTP-0906) and Sidlingappa @ Mudakappa (CTP-0811) in terms of Chapter 13 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Umme Salma, Advocate for Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Deepa Angadi v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:10727
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 107708 of 2024
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
