Supreme Court precedents and State policies upheld: SSRB must reconsider premature release after one year with fresh recommendations; binding authority for correctional and parole decisions
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/81/2025 of NADU PANGI Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010453932025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN (concurring) |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice and Judge) |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing policy framework; mandates SSRB reconsideration |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Writ |
| Questions of Law | Whether SSRB’s refusal to consider fresh enquiry reports and district recommendations—despite state guidelines allowing reconsideration after one year—vitiates its discretion and warrants writ intervention? |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) wields executive discretion under Section 473 BNSS, 2023 and state guidelines but must apply its mind to all material placed before it, including subsequent enquiry reports and district magistrate recommendations. Where guidelines (Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174/2022) mandate reconsideration of rejected premature release proposals after one year, SSRB must convene and re-evaluate the application, considering the policy in force at conviction and any later, more liberal provisions. Failure to do so—relying solely on the nature of the offence without reasons or fresh materials—renders the decision unreasonable. A writ under Articles 226/227 is appropriate to direct SSRB to reconsider within a specified timeframe. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Orissa High Court; all subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court on similar parole and remission issues |
| Overrules | None (reinforces reconsideration requirement under existing policy) |
| Distinguishes | SSRB decisions relying solely on offence category without applying mind to fresh material |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- SSRB must apply its mind to all materials, including subsequent enquiry reports and district recommendations, before rejecting a premature release proposal.
- Under Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174/2022, SSRB-rejected cases are mandatorily reconsidered after one year; fresh consideration cannot be precluded by earlier rejection.
- The policy in force at the time of conviction governs eligibility, but subsequent more liberal policies may also inform SSRB’s discretion.
- Writ jurisdiction (Articles 226/227) can be invoked to direct SSRB to reconsider where inputs were ignored or reasons were not recorded.
- Decisions must demonstrate reasonableness, rationality, and uniform application of guidelines.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Existence of Discretion Under Policy and Statute
- Section 473 BNSS 2023 empowers the State to remit sentences.
- Rule 836 OMJM 2020 and 2022 guidelines prescribe SSRB’s constitution, functions, and categorisation.
-
Policy Framework
- State resolutions (2000, 2005, 2010) and NHRC recommendations govern eligibility/ineligibility, with amendments over time.
- Policy at conviction date is primary, but more liberal subsequent policies may be considered.
-
Mandatory Reconsideration Clause
- Para-8(4) of 2022 guidelines requires re-examination of rejected cases after one year.
-
Supreme Court Precedents
- Sukhdev Yadav: remission vs. commutation; policy prevails.
- Joseph v. Kerala: apply conviction-date policy, thereafter more liberal regimes.
- Hitesh @ Dave and Rajkumar: executive function requires pragmatic, non-arbitrary application.
-
Application to Facts
- SSRB’s 02.06.2023 rejection did not consider 23.04.2024 enquiry or 30.05.2024 district recommendation.
- Failure to record reasons and apply mind rendered decision unreasonable.
- Writ remedy issued to direct SSRB to reconvene within two months for fresh decision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- SSRB’s 43rd meeting decision lacked reasons and non-application of mind to fresh enquiry and district recommendations.
- Policy mandates reconsideration of rejected proposals after one year.
- Subsequent favorable reports establish reduced risk and community support.
State (Opposite Parties)
- SSRB correctly applied Para-6(1)(a): double murder convictions fall outside early release categories.
- Nature of offence justified rejection under prevailing guidelines.
Factual Background
The petitioner, convicted of double murder under Section 302 IPC in 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment—confirmed on appeal in 2015—served twenty years and was released on furlough in 2021. His application for premature release was rejected by the State Sentence Review Board on 02.06.2023 under Para-6(1)(a) of the 2022 guidelines. A subsequent police enquiry report (23.04.2024) and district magistrate recommendation (30.05.2024) favoured his release, but were not considered. A writ petition under Articles 226/227 was filed challenging the SSRB decision and seeking its quashing or direction for reconsideration.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 473 BNSS 2023: Empowers the State to remit sentences.
- Rule 836 OMJM 2020: Lays down classification and objectives for premature release of life convicts.
- Guidelines for Premature Release, 2022 (Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174):
- Quarterly SSRB meetings; quorum and functions.
- Eligibility after 14 years of actual imprisonment (Section 433A CrPC convicts) and classification after 20–25 years.
- Mandated reconsideration of rejected proposals after one year (Para-8(4)).
- State Policy Resolutions (2000, 2005, 2010): Criteria for eligibility and ineligibility, influenced by NHRC recommendations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; both judges agreed on the outcome and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
- Directing SSRB to reconvene within a fixed timeline (two months) for fresh consideration ensures timeliness.
- Emphasizing the duty to apply mind to all materials, including post-rejection documents.
- Clarifying the interplay between conviction-date policy and subsequent liberal amendments in SSRB decisions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Supreme Court principles on remission and policy application
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Reconsideration to occur within two-month deadline under one-year re-application rule
Citations
- WPCRL No.81 of 2025, Orissa High Court, judgment dated 26.08.2025, paras 6.1–6.4, 7.1–7.6, 9–9.1
- BNSS 2023, Section 473; Rule 836 OMJM 2020; Odisha Gazette Notification No.1174/2022; NHRC letter dated 26.09.2003
- Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2025 INSC 969
- Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 INSC 843
- Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 5 SCC 623
- Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 9 SCC 598