The Supreme Court of India again observed that no prisoner who has completed the sentence they are legally required to serve should remain in jail. The remark, though brief, is profound—it touches the very core of constitutional liberty under Article 21 and the State’s obligation to avoid arbitrary detention.
Almost immediately, Advocate Harjinder Singh Dhami, President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), invoked this principle to renew the long-standing demand of the broader Sikh community, within India and abroad: that all Sikh prisoners, popularly called “Bandhi Singhs,” who have already undergone the required portion of their life sentences must be released forthwith. His plea is not new, but the Supreme Court’s observation gives it fresh urgency.
Let us examine this issue in its totality—legally, constitutionally, and morally.
Life Imprisonment: The Legal Meaning
In Indian law, life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s natural life—unless the sentence is formally remitted or commuted. The Supreme Court has made this clear in a line of decisions beginning with Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961), reaffirmed in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980), and again in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015, Constitution Bench).
Contrary to popular belief, there is no automatic release after 14 or 20 years. Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code, which deems life to be “20 years” for certain calculations, is only for computing fractions of punishment—it does not reduce the actual sentence.
Remission and Premature Release: The Statutory Route
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for remission, suspension, and commutation of sentences under Sections 432 and 433. The “appropriate government” (defined in s.432(7)) may:
Suspend the execution of the sentence,
Remit the whole or part of the sentence, or
Commute life imprisonment to a term not exceeding 14 years (IPC s.55).
However, Section 433-A CrPC imposes a hard floor: in cases where life imprisonment is awarded for an offence punishable with death, or where a death sentence is commuted to life, the prisoner cannot be released before serving at least 14 years of actual imprisonment. This provision was upheld in Maru Ram.
In State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), the Court clarified that while no convict has a right to remission, they do have the right to be considered fairly under the remission policy applicable either at the time of conviction or the more liberal one at the time of consideration.
The “Appropriate Government” Question in Bandi Singh Cases
For many Sikh prisoners, the complexity lies in which government has the power to order their release. Under s.432(7) CrPC:
If the trial court was in Punjab, the Punjab Government is the appropriate authority.
If the trial was in Chandigarh (a Union Territory), the Central Government is the authority.
If the trial was in Delhi, the Government of NCT Delhi is the authority.
Further, where the case was investigated by the CBI, Section 435 CrPC requires the State to act only after consultation with the Central Government—and in V. Sriharan, the Supreme Court held “consultation” means “concurrence”. This effectively gives the Centre a veto.
In transferred trials (e.g., from Punjab to another State), the transferee State alone has the power to remit—an important point reaffirmed in the recent Bilkis Bano remission case (2022–2024).
The Mandatory Role of the Trial Judge’s Opinion
Section 432(2) CrPC requires the government to obtain the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court before granting remission. In Union of India v. V. Sriharan and the Bilkis Bano decision, the Supreme Court emphasised this step is mandatory. Governments cannot skip or gloss over this stage.
Parole and Furlough: Not the Same as Release
Parole and furlough are temporary release mechanisms for good conduct or humanitarian reasons. They are governed by State prison rules, not the CrPC remission provisions.
In Punjab, the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 applies.
In Chandigarh, Punjab’s Act and Jail Manual are applied.
In Delhi, the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 govern.
Importantly, parole/furlough do not shorten the sentence—they merely grant temporary liberty under supervision.
Supreme Court’s Observations and the Constitutional Mandate
The Court’s recent observation aligns with Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—which includes freedom from arbitrary detention. Once a prisoner has served the minimum mandatory term and meets the criteria under remission rules, continuing to confine them without a lawful reason becomes unconstitutional.
The Constitution also gives extraordinary powers to the President (Article 72) and Governor (Article 161) to grant pardons, commutations, and remissions. These powers are independent of the CrPC and are subject only to limited judicial review (Kehar Singh v. Union of India, Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P.).
Why Bandi Singhs Remain Inside
Despite having served long years—some over three decades—many Sikh prisoners remain incarcerated because:
Their cases fall under Section 433-A, requiring at least 14 years’ actual imprisonment.
The sentencing order specifies a “special category” life term without statutory remission (as in Swamy Shraddananda and V. Sriharan).
CBI concurrence under s.435 CrPC is withheld.
The wrong government is approached for remission.
The trial court’s opinion under s.432(2) is adverse.
In 2019, during Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s 550th birth anniversary, the Centre announced special remissions for certain Sikh prisoners, but implementation has been uneven, often stalled on jurisdictional or procedural grounds.
The Way Forward: Law Plus Empathy
The issue of the Bandhi Singhs—like that of all long-term prisoners—must be addressed in two simultaneous dimensions:
Strict Legal Compliance
Identify the correct “appropriate government” based on the sentencing court.
Follow s.432(2) CrPC to obtain the trial judge’s opinion.
In CBI cases, secure Central concurrence under s.435.
Apply remission policies consistently, giving benefit of the more liberal policy where applicable (Jagdish).
Executive Discretion with Empathy
The Constitution does not limit remission to a mechanical application of rules. Articles 72 and 161 empower the President and Governors to act in the broader interest of justice, mercy, and reconciliation. Where the prisoner has demonstrated reform, poses no threat, and continued detention serves no public purpose (Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B.), the case for release becomes compelling.
For the Sikh prisoners, whose incarceration has become both a legal and political touchstone, an empathetic application of these powers could help heal historical wounds without breaching the framework of law.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s reminder that no prisoner should remain in jail beyond the term the law prescribes is not merely a point of legal procedure—it is a moral and political call to action. For the Bandhi Singhs, this is more than an administrative file review; it is about addressing a deep wound in the Sikh psyche, one that still bears the searing memories of Operation Blue Star of June 1984 and the anti-Sikh pogrom of November 1984. The scars of those events will never fully fade, but the healing process demands tangible gestures of justice. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often proclaimed that he has done more for the Sikh community than any of his predecessors and has promised to address their just concerns.
The resolution of this matter is a crucial test of that pledge. Acting decisively now would not only reaffirm constitutional compassion and administrative fairness but could also usher in a new era of peace and stability in Punjab—a sensitive border state whose harmony is vital to national security. It may even lay the groundwork for rebuilding political bridges, perhaps reviving a constructive alliance between the BJP and an appropriate faction of the Shiromani Akali Dal. In the end, justice in these cases is not merely about the mechanics of punishment; it is about knowing when to let go, so that both a community and a nation can move forward.
Author credentials:
Karan Bir Singh Sidhu is a retired IAS officer who served as Special Chief Secretary, Punjab, and as Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar (1992–1996). He writes at the intersection of constitutional morality, human rights, the Sikh psyche, potential political alliances, and the path to empathy, reconciliation and closure in Punjab.