NEW DELHI: Convict Gurmej Singh is likely to get a fresh chance at freedom after the Supreme Court directed the competent authority to reconsider his plea for premature release within eight weeks, holding that convicts transferred from the UK to India are eligible for remission under Indian policy.
Singh was convicted of murder by the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 35 years. He was transferred to India in May 2015 under the Indo-UK Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
After completing 14 years in prison, he applied for premature release. However, the Union government rejected his plea. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on October 31, 2023, upheld the Centre's decision, holding that he was required to serve the sentence imposed by the UK court.
However, a Supreme Court bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale allowed his appeal.
The court held that Article 10(2) of the agreement empowers either state to grant a pardon, amnesty or commutation in accordance with its Constitution or other laws, with the expression "other laws" also covering remission policies.
"It is not as if the conviction per se is modified, but it is only the sentence that stands reduced, by way of a policy decision in the form of remission," the court said.
The bench clarified that Article 8, which deals with the continued enforcement and adaptation of sentences, was not the key provision in the case, as the issue concerned the applicability of remission policies.
It was undisputed that had the same offence been committed in India, Singh would have been eligible for consideration under the relevant remission policy.
The court also relied on a Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated June 20, 2018, which had informed the UK authorities that the transfer of prisoners would be subject to the remission policy of the appropriate government. The communication stated that a life convict was expected to remain in custody until the end of his natural life, subject to remission granted under the law.
Singh's counsel argued that Sections 11, 12 and 13(6) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003, read with Articles 8 and 10 of the agreement, supported his claim.
The Union government and Punjab, however, contended that Article 8 did not permit modification of the sentence to the prisoner's benefit.
Rejecting their arguments, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court order and the Union government's decision rejecting Singh's plea.
Singh will now be entitled to the same consideration under the applicable remission policy as other life convicts in India.