Centre’s Consent for Remission Needed Only During Pending Central Act Sentence

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court, in the case of Nanjil Mugilan v. The State (2026), held that the consent of the Central Government under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (no is a prerequisite for remission only when the sentence for the offence under the Central Act is still continuing. Once such sentence has been fully served by the convict, the bar under Section 435 no longer operates, and the State Government is free to consider the plea for remission on its own. The court further directed the implementation of the E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module, launched by NALSA, as a pilot project in Puzhal Central Prison, Tamil Nadu.

What was the Background of Nanjil Mugilan v. The State (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner's father was lodged in Chennai Central Prison and was serving a life sentence, having been convicted on October 20, 2004 for offences under Sections 148 (rigorous imprisonment of one year), 341 (simple imprisonment of one month), and 302 (life imprisonment, five counts) of the IPC, along with Section 3 (rigorous imprisonment of one year) of the Explosive Substances Act. 
• Appeals filed before the High Court and the Supreme Court were both dismissed. 
• By the time of the present petition, the convict had been incarcerated for over 21 years and was stated to have undergone substantial reformation. 
• The petitioner filed a representation before the authorities seeking premature release of his father, which was rejected citing a Government Order dated February 1, 2018 (G.O.(Ms).No.64), which barred consideration of cases attracting Section 435 CrPC. 
• Since the conviction included an offence under the Explosive Substances Act — a Central enactment — the State refused remission on the ground that Central Government consent under Section 435 was required. 
• The petitioner contended that his father had already served the sentence under the Central Act in full and that the bar under Section 435 therefore no longer applied.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the scope of Section 435 CrPC: The court held that Section 435 CrPC obliges the State Government to consult the Central Government before remitting or commuting a sentence only in relation to the offence that attracts the said provision. The requirement of Central Government consent is not a blanket bar on all remission proceedings; it is confined to the period during which the sentence under the Central Act is still operative. 

On applicability once Central Act sentence is served: The court held that once the convict has served the sentence awarded for the offence under the Central Act, the requirement of seeking Central Government consent under Section 435 CrPC ceases to apply. The State Government is thereafter competent to consider the plea for remission without any such consultation. 

On the Government Order of 2018: The court held that the condition in G.O.(Ms).No.64, which referred to Section 435, must be understood in the same manner as the provision itself — that is, as applicable only during the subsistence of the sentence under the Central Act. Any contrary reading would be inconsistent with the explicit intention of the statutory provision and the State's own subsequent Government Orders on the subject. 

On rejection of the State's policy argument: The court rejected the State's submission that it had, as a policy, decided to exclude all cases attracting Section 435 CrPC from the benefit of remission orders. Such a blanket exclusion, without regard to whether the sentence under the Central Act had been served, was held to be contrary to the legal position settled by Supreme Court pronouncements on the matter. 

On directions issued: The court directed the competent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's father's case for premature release and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What is Section 477 of BNSS? 

About: 

Section 477 of the BNSS, 2023 is the successor provision to Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It governs the exercise of the State Government's power to remit or commute sentences in cases where Central Government interests are involved, by making such exercise conditional upon prior concurrence of the Central Government. 

Key Provisions: 

• Sub-section (1) — Mandatory Concurrence: The State Government cannot exercise its powers of suspension, remission, or commutation under Sections 473 and 474 of the BNSS without first obtaining the concurrence of the Central Government, where the offence:  
  • Was investigated by any agency empowered to investigate under any Central Act other than the BNSS; or 
  • Involved misappropriation, destruction of, or damage to any property belonging to the Central Government; or 
  • Was committed by a Central Government servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. 
• Sub-section (2) — Concurrent Sentences Involving Union Matters: Where a convict has been sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment running concurrently, and some offences relate to matters within the executive power of the Union, no State Government order of suspension, remission, or commutation shall have effect unless a corresponding order has also been made by the Central Government in relation to those Union-related offences.

Comparison with Section 435 CrPC: 

• Section 477 BNSS is substantially similar to Section 435 CrPC in its object and operation — both provisions condition State remission powers on Central Government concurrence in specified categories of cases. 
• The key difference in drafting is that Section 477 BNSS uses the term "concurrence" in place of "consultation" used under Section 435 CrPC, indicating a stronger requirement of agreement rather than merely seeking an opinion. 
• Sub-section (2) of Section 477 explicitly addresses the scenario of concurrent sentences straddling both Central and State subject-matter — a position that was largely developed through judicial interpretation under the old CrPC regime.