Representative image. | Photo credit: Getty Images/iStockphotos
In its judgment, the Supreme Court said that granting early release to a convict is a “special executive function” and added that the heinousness of the crime must not dictate the decision to pardon.
The court said that justice did not permit the permanent imprisonment of an individual in the shadow of their worst crime. Therefore, the nature of the offense cannot be the only reason for denying a pardon.
“We want to make it clear that in a constitutional set-up governed by the rule of law, the denial of pardon cannot rest solely on the heinousness of the crime. Pardon is not an extension of the sentencing process but a separate executive function which deals with the present and the future, namely the prisoner’s conduct, evidence of reformation and prospects of reintegration into society,” observed Bhuyan V Najgarth of Justice in the judgment.
A reformative ideal
The judgment, authored by Justice Nagarathna, said that denying a pardon based solely on the heinous nature of the offense would amount to “reverse confirmation of guilt”.
“The seriousness and heinousness of the crime is exhausted at the sentencing stage and the court’s sentencing decision necessarily includes these considerations. A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the seriousness of the crime to transform the offender will betray its reformist ideal especially at the pardon stage,” said Justice Nagarathna.
Pardon decisions must come from a holistic assessment of the prisoner and after balancing societal interests with the prisoner’s right to be considered for release based on fair and reasonable criteria, she said.
These observations were made by the court while quashing the government’s decision to deny pardon or early release to convict Rohit Chaturvedi in the 2003 Madhumita murder case.
Published – 16 May 2026 22:37 IST
