"‘Opinion Not Tenable in Law’: Meghalaya HC Quashes Life Convict’s Remission Rejection, Says District Judge Merely Echoed Trial Court Observations, Causing Prejudice"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh issued a direction for reconsideration of a remission application filed by a life convict. The Court set aside the previously issued opinion and rejection order on the ground of non-application of mind and failure to follow due legal procedures.
The Court observed that the opinion rejecting the remission plea was given by a District Judge rather than the Sessions Judge who presided over the original conviction. It further noted that the decision lacked necessary inputs regarding the convict’s conduct and other mandated factors for assessing remission.
The petitioner, Shri Nabam Tai, was convicted in 2008 for offences under Sections 302, 382, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction arose from an incident on 12.12.2005, wherein a Tourist Taxi was hired but did not return. Subsequently, the taxi driver, Gaytam Gurung, was found to have been murdered. An FIR dated 15.12.2005 led to the registration of Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 194(12) of 2005.
Following investigation, the petitioner along with four co-accused were arrested. The petitioner and one Jatin Rabha were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for other offences. Three other co-accused were acquitted on the benefit of doubt.
In his plea, the petitioner stated he had completed over 14 years of incarceration and therefore sought remission under Sections 432 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His application dated 14.08.2020 was followed by further representations, including one through his brother on 05.12.2020 and another on 02.08.2021. Despite multiple applications and reminders, there was no response from the authorities.
In 2022, the petitioner filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2022 seeking directions for remission. During the course of those proceedings, he became aware of an order dated 23.09.2022 rejecting his remission application. This rejection was based on an opinion issued by the District Judge, Shillong dated 14.07.2022, which stated that remission should not be granted owing to the brutality of the crime, potential for reoffending, and the crime allegedly being committed by a syndicate.
The petitioner challenged both the rejection and the opinion before the High Court, arguing that the decision failed to consider critical elements such as the petitioner’s antecedents, behaviour in prison, and prospects of reformation. The petitioner asserted that during his incarceration, he had completed courses in theology and handicrafts, and was recommended by the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority to serve as a Para Legal Volunteer.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. B. Deb, referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 500, stating parameters relevant to remission.
On behalf of the State, Additional Advocate General Mr. N.D. Chullai, along with Government Advocate Ms. R. Colney, opposed the petition, relying on the opinion of the District Judge. They argued that the crime was gruesome, involved a syndicate, and that releasing the petitioner would risk recurrence of similar offences. Reliance was placed on Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 1068, Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B. & Anr., (2000) 7 SCC 626, and Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 5 SCC 481.
The State also referred to the Remission Policy, 2025 notified on 31.01.2025 pursuant to the directions in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021. The policy details procedures for remission applications and includes scrutiny by the Superintendent of Prison, opinion from the presiding officer of the convicting court, and consideration by the Sentence Review Committee.
The Court noted: "The opinion was given by the District Judge, Shillong who has not stated that he has done so in his capacity as the Sessions Judge... this Court render any such opinion given as not tenable in law."
The Court observed that the opinion did not comply with the requirements of Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court. It stated: "Even if the judge who had passed the sentence is no longer available... it would be but proper for the opinion to be sought for or to be given by the succeeding Sessions Judge."
The Court also found that the opinion relied upon observations of brutality and possible syndicate involvement without assessing the petitioner’s conduct, stating: "The opinion of the learned District Judge has reflected only the observations made based on the judgment of the Trial Court... that too, only on the observations that the crime committed was done so in a brutal manner..."
Further, the Court remarked that key parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court were not considered. Referring to Laxman Naskar, the Court reproduced the five guiding questions, including whether the offence affects society at large, chances of recurrence, convict’s potential to reoffend, the purpose of continued confinement, and socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
It stated: "It would have been convenient for the relevant authority to seek the report of the prison authorities to study the case of the applicant/convict within the parameters of the abovementioned guidelines."
The Court held that the authorities did not obtain a report from the Superintendent of Prison and the District Judge did not examine relevant factors. As a result, the rejection of remission was found to be based on "a wrong premise" and lacking application of mind.
The Court set aside the following:
- "The operation of the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 of the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services as well as the opinion dated 14.07.2022 of the learned District Judge, East Khasi Hills, Shillong are hereby set aside and quashed."
- "Without the necessity of the petitioner having to file a fresh application, the concerned authorities would take up the same from the records and reconsider the same following due procedure."
- "This exercise is preferably to be completed within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of communication of this order to the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services."
- The petition was disposed of with no costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Deb, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General, and Ms. R. Colney, Government Advocate
Case Title: Shri Nabam Tai v. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:198
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2022
Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh
[Read/Download order]
