Gujarat Remission Orders Quashed: Appropriate Govt (SC 2024)

Gujarat Lacked Power to Remit Sentences of 11 Convicts Tried in Mumbai; Remission Orders Quashed: Supreme Court

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court quashed the State of Gujarat's orders of 10 August 2022 remitting the life sentences of eleven men convicted of gang rape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots. As the trial was held in Mumbai, only Maharashtra was the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC. The Court also held its own order of 13 May 2022 a nullity obtained by suppressing facts, and sent the convicts back to jail (paras 33, 41, 56, 70).

Key holdings

A victim may challenge remission orders directly under Article 32 of the Constitution (para 22).

When this Court transfers a trial, the sentencing State remains the appropriate Government (para 33).

An order of this Court obtained by suppressing material facts is a nullity and binds no one (para 41).

The trial judge's opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC is mandatory and must give reasons tied to the record (paras 52, 55).

Article 142 cannot be used to keep convicts out of jail when their release rests on void orders (para 69).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

During the 2002 riots after the Godhra train burning, the petitioner, referred to here as B, was gang-raped and members of her family were killed (para 2). On her petitions this Court moved the investigation to the CBI and the trial to Mumbai, where a Special Judge convicted eleven men in 2008; the Bombay High Court and this Court upheld the convictions (para 3). In 2019 the Gujarat High Court told one convict to apply to Maharashtra, and the authorities consulted on that application opposed early release. He then obtained this Court's order of 13 May 2022 directing Gujarat to decide under its 1992 policy, and Gujarat released all eleven on 10 August 2022 (para 3).

Court's Findings

B's own petition under Article 32 was maintainable, as it enforces fundamental rights and she need not first approach the High Court (para 22). Under Section 432(7) CrPC the appropriate Government is that of the State within which the offender is sentenced, even where this Court has transferred the trial to another State (para 33). Following Ratan Singh, Hanumant Dass, M.T. Khan and V. Sriharan, only Maharashtra could decide the applications, so Gujarat's orders lacked competence and were a nullity (para 33). The order of 13 May 2022 was obtained by suppressing that the convict had already applied to Maharashtra, where every authority consulted opposed remission (para 37). It was therefore a fraud on the Court, non est, and not binding on B, who was not a party (paras 41, 56). It was also per incuriam, being contrary to larger Bench decisions (paras 45, 56). By acting on it, Gujarat usurped Maharashtra's power (para 50). The mandatory opinion of the Mumbai trial judge under Section 432(2) was brushed aside, and the opinion of the Sessions Judge at Dahod was without jurisdiction (paras 52, 53, 56), and the unpaid fines were overlooked (para 54).

Legal Principle

Under Section 432(7)(b) CrPC, only the Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced can remit the sentence, even if the offence occurred elsewhere; another State's order is a nullity. An order of this Court obtained by suppressing material facts is a fraud on the Court and binds no one (paras 33, 41).

Precedents Relied Upon

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah vs. State of Gujarat (2022) 8 SCC 552
Not Followed Discussed at ¶ 3, 41
The order directing Gujarat to consider remission was held to have been obtained by suppression of facts and to be a nullity, non est and per incuriam.
Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others (2016) 7 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33, 36
Outside Section 432(7)(a), the State within whose territory the offender is sentenced is the appropriate Government.
State of M.P. vs. Ratan Singh (1976) 3 SCC 470
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33
The appropriate Government to remit a sentence is the Government of the State where the prisoner was convicted and sentenced.

View all precedents (6)

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (Dead) through LRs (1994) 1 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 42
Fraud avoids all judicial acts.
Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 12 SCC 52
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 52
The Presiding Judge's opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC must be reasoned and consider the relevant factors.
Laxman Naskar vs. State of West Bengal (2000) 2 SCC 595
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 55
Factors such as the nature of the offence and the chance of recurrence govern the grant of remission.

Statutory Provisions