Karnataka High Court clarifies: Fixed-term 20+ year sentences do not per se bar remission; eligibility endures unless the sentencing court expressly excludes it

Introduction

This commentary examines the Karnataka High Court’s oral order in Deepa Angadi W/o Siddappa CTP 0898 v. State of Karnataka (WP No. 107708 of 2024), decided on 22 August 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj at the Dharwad Bench. The petitioner, the wife of a convict, sought a writ of mandamus directing prison authorities and the Life Convicts Release Committee to grant remission to three related convicts—her husband Siddappa (CTP-0898), her mother-in-law Mallavva (CTP-0906), and her brother-in-law Sidlingappa @ Mudakappa (the order references CTP-0811)—under the remission policy that applied at the time of their admission to prison, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sharafat Ali.

All three were convicted in S.C. No. 28/2006 for offences under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially sentenced to death, their sentences were modified on appeal to a fixed term of 21 years with fine (judgment dated 16 December 2008). By 1 April 2023, the three convicts had undergone incarceration ranging from 15½ to over 18 years. Their remission applications were rejected on the ground that remission “is not a matter of right” under Rule 164(v) of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, and because their sentence exceeded 20 years.

The core issues before the Court were: (1) whether a fixed-term sentence (here, 21 years) precludes remission, compelling completion of the entire term; and (2) whether a life sentence or a sentence of 20 years or more disqualifies a prisoner from remission under the 2021 Manual. The case thus sits at the intersection of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, the 2021 Prisons Manual (particularly Rule 164), and Supreme Court jurisprudence on remission policies.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that a fixed-term sentence, even if 20 years or more (here, 21 years), does not by itself bar consideration for remission. Absent an express judicial direction in the sentencing order prohibiting premature release, parole, or remission, a convict remains eligible to be considered.
There is no embargo in Rule 164 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, that disqualifies prisoners with life or 20+ year sentences from remission. Rule 164(v) merely states that remission is not a matter of right; it does not authorize categorical exclusion.
Remission is a structured, discretionary incentive linked to reformation, discipline, and good conduct. Where conduct is satisfactory, authorities must evaluate remission under Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual in a judicious, non-arbitrary manner.
Remedy: The writ petition was allowed. Respondents were directed to reconsider the three remission applications without being influenced by the prior rejection order dated 21 August 2025 and, if qualified, to grant remission per Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual within two weeks.

Detailed Analysis

Statutory and Policy Framework Applied

Section 63(2)(e), Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963: Enables the framing of rules to regularize the shortening of sentences by remission. The State argued remission remains a discretionary concession under this regime.
Rule 164, Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021:
- Purpose and incentive (Rule 164(i)): Remission aims at reformation, promoting discipline and good conduct through the incentive of potential early release.
- Nature (Rule 164(ii) & (v)): Remission is a concession (not a right) that may be granted and withdrawn by specified authorities; however, denial must be reasoned and judicious.
- Deeming clause (Rule 164(iv)): For the purposes of the Rules, all sentences of life or more than 20 years’ imprisonment (alone or in aggregate) are deemed to be sentences of 20 years. This deeming provision is crucial to the Court’s conclusion that 20+ year sentences are not outside the remission framework.
Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual: Provides the modalities for ordinary remission, special remission, State Government remission, calculation methodology, and limits.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10464/2017
The petitioner relied on Asfaq to contend that later, more restrictive policies cannot extinguish remission expectations when earlier policies contained no disqualifying criteria. The judgment reproduces a passage emphasizing:
- On the date of conviction, an earlier policy applied, which treated life imprisonment for the purpose of release calculation as 20 years, imposed a 14-year actual imprisonment threshold, and allowed remission to make up 20 years.
- The later policy introduced ineligibility criteria not present in the earlier one; authorities could not apply later ineligibility to defeat the prisoner’s case.
While the High Court ultimately anchored its ratio in the 2021 Karnataka Manual, Asfaq’s logic supports the broader theme that authorities cannot impose extraneous, ex post disqualifications to deny remission.
“Rajendra Mandal’s case” (Supreme Court)
Cited by the Court for the proposition that, for offences punishable with death or where a death sentence is commuted to life (CrPC Section 433), release requires at least 14 years of actual imprisonment—a threshold commonly found in remission policies. The reference underscores that after serving the statutory/policy minimum, the convict may be considered for remission; it does not imply an absolute bar thereafter.
Sharafat Ali (Supreme Court)
Invoked at the pleading stage to argue that remission ought to be considered in line with the policy prevailing at the time of the prisoners’ admission/conviction. The High Court did not resolve a conflict of policies in this case; instead, it directed application of Chapter 13 of the Karnataka Manual, 2021. Even so, Sharafat Ali’s principle complements the Court’s stance against blanket, policy-based ineligibility.

Notably, the High Court also acknowledged (as a general proposition) that if a sentencing court expressly stipulates no remission/premature release (as seen in “special category” life sentences fashioned by the Supreme Court in particular cases), that bar must be respected; otherwise, remission remains open to consideration. This is consistent with the wider jurisprudence that allows courts, in exceptional cases, to insulate sentences from executive remission for a specified minimum term.

Legal Reasoning

Fixed-term sentences exceeding 20 years do not create a categorical bar.
The State attempted to equate a 21-year sentence with an ineligibility for remission. The Court rejected this by reading Rule 164 holistically:
- The deeming clause (Rule 164(iv)) groups life and 20+ year sentences together and treats them, for the Manual’s purposes, as 20-year sentences. This supports inclusion of such convicts within the remission calculus, not their exclusion.
- Rule 164(v)’s “not a right” clause does not authorize blanket denials; it preserves discretion to be exercised on relevant criteria (conduct, discipline, reformation), not on sentence length alone.
The Court concluded that where the sentencing order is silent on prohibiting remission or parole, “the benefit thereof would have to be provided to the detenue.”
Remission as a reformatory “carrot” creates a legitimate expectation of consideration.
The Court emphasized Rule 164(i)’s rehabilitative purpose: remission is held out as an incentive for good conduct, better work culture, and participation in institutional activities. When the State uses remission as a behavioral incentive, it cannot later dismiss claims on a non-reasoned, categorical basis such as sentence length. Instead, the authority must:
- Assess conduct and disciplinary record;
- Apply Chapter 13’s computation and eligibility rules;
- Exercise discretion judiciously, with reasons.
The Court recorded that the convicts’ conduct was “satisfactory” and that they had not committed offences during incarceration—facts that are material to remission assessment.
Remedy tailored to institutional role and discretion.
Recognizing that remission, while not a right, is a structured discretion, the Court did not direct release. Instead, it mandated reconsideration within a strict timeline (two weeks) under Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual, and without being influenced by the earlier rejection order. This preserves administrative discretion while ensuring it is exercised on proper legal grounds.

Impact and Prospective Significance

End of “length-based” categorical exclusions in Karnataka: Authorities cannot deny remission simply because the sentence is 21, 25, or otherwise more than 20 years. The proper inquiry is the prisoner’s conduct, risk assessment, and the structured criteria under Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual.
Clarity on the deeming clause: By recognizing Rule 164(iv) as an inclusionary device (treating life and 20+ year terms alike for remission purposes), the Court removes administrative confusion and potential arbitrariness about fixed-term “life-equivalent” sentences.
Express-judicial-bar principle: If a sentencing order expressly excludes remission/premature release or sets a minimum non-remittable term, authorities must respect that direction. Otherwise, remission consideration is available in the ordinary course.
Reinforcement of reformatory penology: The judgment strengthens the link between rehabilitation and conditional leniency—encouraging prisoners’ compliance with institutional discipline and programming, knowing that bona fide prospects of remission exist.
Administrative discipline and timelines: The two-week direction underscores that remission decisions should be prompt, reasoned, and policy-compliant, reducing prolonged uncertainty for eligible convicts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Remission: A reduction of the term of a sentence as a reward for good conduct, work, and participation in reformatory activities. It does not annul conviction; it shortens the sentence per rules/policy.
Parole vs. Furlough vs. Remission:
- Parole is a temporary, conditional release primarily for specific needs (e.g., family emergencies) and does not reduce the sentence length.
- Furlough is a short, periodic leave to maintain community ties; like parole, it does not reduce sentence length.
- Remission reduces the sentence term itself based on defined criteria.
Life imprisonment and “special category” life:
- Ordinarily, “life” means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, but remission policies and constitutional powers may shorten it after minimum thresholds (e.g., 14 years actual for specified classes).
- In exceptional cases, courts have crafted “special category” life sentences that explicitly bar remission or stipulate a minimum non-remittable term (e.g., 25/30 years). Where such a bar is explicit, remission cannot be granted during the barred period.
Deeming provision (Rule 164(iv)): For the purpose of remission rules, life and fixed terms exceeding 20 years are treated as 20-year sentences, ensuring they fall within the remission framework.
“Not a matter of right” vs. “Arbitrary denial”: Saying remission is not a right means it must be earned and is subject to discretion. It does not permit arbitrary, blanket denials; decisions must be individualized, reasoned, and anchored in policy criteria.
Minimum actual imprisonment (often 14 years): For offences punishable with death or where death is commuted to life, policies and CrPC Section 433A typically require 14 years’ actual imprisonment before consideration of premature release. Completion of this threshold opens, but does not guarantee, remission.

Observations on the Record

CTP number discrepancy: The cause title indicates Sidlingappa @ Mudakappa as CTP-0899, whereas the body and dispositive portion refer to CTP-0811. This appears to be a typographical inconsistency that authorities should clarify during reconsideration to avoid administrative error.
CrPC section reference in extracted policy: The reproduced extract mentions CrPC Section 429 in the context of set-off for pre-trial detention; typically, set-off is governed by Section 428. This may reflect an error in the source policy extract, though it does not affect the Court’s ratio.

Practical Pointers for Authorities and Applicants (under this ruling)

Do not treat fixed-term sentences exceeding 20 years as ineligible per se; apply Chapter 13 of the 2021 Manual.
Verify whether the sentencing order expressly excludes remission/premature release. If silent, proceed to consider remission on merits.
Assess conduct, disciplinary record, participation in institutional activities, and any security/risk concerns; document reasons.
Apply the deeming clause to place life and 20+ year sentences within the 20-year remission framework for calculation purposes.
Comply with timelines and ensure decisions are reasoned and non-arbitrary; avoid reliance on generic statements such as “remission is not a right.”

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision establishes a clear and pragmatic rule: a fixed-term sentence of 20 years or more is not, by itself, a bar to remission under the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. Rule 164’s structure—particularly its deeming clause—brings such sentences squarely within the remission framework, while the “not a right” qualification preserves discretion without authorizing blanket ineligibility. Unless a sentencing court has expressly excluded remission or premature release, prison authorities must consider remission applications on their merits, guided by the prisoner’s conduct, reformation, and the computation rules in Chapter 13 of the Manual.

By remanding the matter for reconsideration within two weeks and nullifying reliance on a prior rejection rooted in a misreading of Rule 164(v), the Court reinforces both the rehabilitative aims of remission and the need for administrative decisions to be legally sound, individualized, and timely. The ruling is likely to influence remission practice across Karnataka, particularly for prisoners serving long fixed terms or life sentences, aligning prison administration with constitutional penology and established Supreme Court guidance against retroactive or categorical exclusions.