The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2025 INSC 969) has clarified a recurring yet complex sentencing question: if a court imposes life imprisonment for a fixed term without remission (for example, 20 years actual imprisonment), is the convict automatically entitled to release upon serving the fixed term, or must they still apply for remission from the executive?
This issue arises because the punishment of “life imprisonment” under Indian law is, by default, imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life. However, in certain cases — particularly those where death penalty is commuted or reduced — courts fix a specific term of actual incarceration that must be served without remission. The question is: when that period ends, is executive intervention still required for release?
Background of the Case
Facts
Offence & Conviction: The appellant, Sukhdev Yadav, was convicted in the infamous Nitish Katara murder case for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which correspond to Sections 103, 140, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Sentence Modification: On 6 February 2015, the Delhi High Court modified his sentence to:
Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and fine of ₹10,000.
This sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2016, with a minor modification that all sentences would run concurrently.
Completion of Term: On 9 March 2025, the appellant completed 20 years of actual incarceration, having also paid the fine.
State’s Stand
The Government of NCT of Delhi argued that even after serving 20 years actual imprisonment without remission, the appellant’s sentence remained “life imprisonment” and therefore he could be released only after the Sentence Review Board (SRB) considered and granted remission.
Appellant’s Stand
The appellant contended that the judicially fixed term of 20 years actual imprisonment without remission was the complete sentence imposed. Once that term was served, there was no legal requirement to seek remission.
Issue
- Whether a convict who has completed the fixed term of actual imprisonment specified in a life sentence (without remission) is required to seek remission to secure release, or is entitled to automatic release on sentence completion?
This required the Court to examine:
- The meaning of life imprisonment.
- The distinction between fixed-term life sentences and ordinary life sentences.
- The nature and purpose of remission.
- The scope of judicially fixed incarceration periods in light of precedents.
Understanding Life Imprisonment
Statutory Context
- Section 53 IPC (Section 4 BNS): Lists punishments, including “imprisonment for life.”
- Section 45 IPC [Section 2(17) BNS]: “Life” means the life of a human being.
- Section 57 IPC (Section 6 BNS): For certain purposes (like fractional calculation), life imprisonment is reckoned as 20 years — but this does not convert life imprisonment into a 20-year term.
Judicial Position on Life Imprisonment
The Supreme Court has consistently held in cases such as:
- Gopal Vinayak Godse (1961 AIR SC 600)
- Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107
- Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, unless commuted or remitted by a competent authority.
Fixed-Term Life Sentences: The Special Category
In Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767, the Supreme Court introduced a special category of life sentence — where courts, instead of awarding the death penalty, impose a fixed term (e.g., 20, 25, 30, or 40 years) of actual imprisonment without remission. This serves multiple purposes:
- Avoids premature release in heinous crimes.
- Balances judicial conscience against awarding death penalty.
- Prevents executive remission from reducing the sentence below the judicially intended minimum.
The Constitution Bench affirmed this principle in V. Sriharan, which held:
- Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) can fix a specific term of incarceration beyond 14 years without remission.
- Such a judicially fixed term is binding and cannot be altered by executive remission during that period.
Distinction Between Remission and Completion of Sentence
Remission
Nature: An Executive act that reduces the period of a sentence.
Effect: Does not alter the conviction; only affects the execution of the sentence.
Relevance: Applies when part of the sentence remains unserved.
Completion of Sentence
- When a convict has served the entire judicially imposed sentence (including any fixed non-remittable term), there is nothing left to remit — the sentence is complete.
- The Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj (2003) 7 SCC 121 and Sarat Chandra Rabha (AIR 1961 SC 334) emphasised that remission operates only within the span of an ongoing sentence. If the sentence has been fully served, remission is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning in Sukhdev Yadav’s Case
Judicial Sentence is Final
- The Delhi High Court’s 2015 order (affirmed by the Supreme Court) clearly stated: Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission.
- This meant the appellant was bound to serve exactly 20 years in jail without any reduction during that period.
Post-Completion Scenario
- Once the fixed term is completed, the sentence is fully served.
- The convict cannot be asked to seek remission for a sentence that no longer exists in law.
State’s Argument Rejected
The State’s insistence on Sentence Review Board consideration conflated two distinct situations:
- Life imprisonment simpliciter (natural life) — where remission is relevant.
- Fixed-term life imprisonment without remission — where completion of the term ends the sentence.
Constitutional Safeguards
- Continuing to hold a convict after completion of a judicially imposed fixed term would violate Article 21 (right to personal liberty).
- Executive authorities cannot “sit in appeal” over a final judicial sentence.
Outcome
- The Court held that upon completing the fixed non-remittable term, the convict is entitled to immediate release (subject to not being required in any other case).
Key Judicial Observations
- A fixed-term life sentence without remission is different from ordinary life imprisonment; it is a definite sentence.
- Remission is unnecessary once the fixed term is over; the concept applies only when part of the sentence remains unserved.
- The executive cannot extend incarceration beyond the judicially determined term.
This interpretation aligns with the proportionality principle emphasised in Navas alias Mulanavas (2024) and other cases.
Implications of the Judgment
1. For Convicts
- Those serving fixed-term life sentences without remission can be released automatically upon completion, without executive discretion.
- Removes uncertainty about Sentence Review Board decisions after fixed terms.
2. For the Executive
- State governments cannot insist on remission applications where the court has imposed a fixed term without remission.
- Prevents administrative delay in releasing eligible prisoners.
3. For Sentencing Policy
- Reinforces judicial primacy in fixing minimum incarceration terms in heinous crimes.
- Protects judicial sentencing intent from being diluted by executive action.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated:
Consequently, we hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Broader Constitutional and Human Rights Perspective
The judgment aligns with:
- Article 21: Protects liberty against unlawful detention.
- Separation of Powers: Prevents executive override of judicial sentencing.
- Reformative Justice: Recognises that once the intended punishment is served, continued incarceration has no legal or moral basis.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision settles an important legal debate: Remission is not necessary when a convict has completed a judicially fixed-term life sentence without remission. Upon serving such a term, the convict is entitled to release as a matter of right, unless wanted in another case.
This ensures clarity, protects constitutional liberties, and reinforces the principle that while the executive controls remission, it cannot interfere with or extend a sentence that the judiciary has already conclusively fixed and which has been fully served.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams