The Supreme Court ruled that a “life imprisonment” sentence specifying a fixed term of “actual imprisonment without remission” is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Facts Of The Case:
Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to “life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission.” This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual incarceration on March 9, 2025. However, the state refused to release him, contending that as a life convict, he was required to seek remission from a Sentence Review Board. This led to a legal challenge on the core question of whether a convict must apply for remission after completing a judicially mandated fixed term of imprisonment, or if their release is automatic upon its completion. The case culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling on this significant legal issue.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with Sukhdev Yadav’s conviction and sentencing by the trial court. He, along with co-accused, appealed to the Delhi High Court. In its 2015 judgment, the High Court specifically modified the sentence to “life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission.” This order was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2016. Upon completing this 20-year term in March 2025, the state refused his release. Yadav then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the state’s stance and seeking his rightful release, which led to the final ruling.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim
Court Observation:
The Court observed that a judicially mandated “life imprisonment” sentence with a specified fixed term of “actual imprisonment without remission” is a determinative and standalone punishment. Upon completion of this stipulated period, the convict is automatically entitled to release and is not required to apply for remission. The Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over or alter a final judicial sentence. Any detention beyond the expressly fixed term constitutes illegal incarceration and a violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Sukhdev Yadav was entitled to immediate release as he had completed the mandated 20-year period of actual imprisonment without remission. The Court ruled that his continued detention beyond this fixed term was unlawful. It clarified that no application for remission was necessary as the sentence itself was for a specified, fixed duration. The Court directed that he need not surrender after his furlough period expired. Additionally, it issued a general directive to all states to identify and release any prisoners who have completed their sentences but are still incarcerated.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others Citation: 2025 INSC 969 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2025 Date of Judgement: July 29, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Download The Judgement Here