Factual Background 

In the instant case of Biresh Poddar v. State of W.B.., The respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s request for remission even though he has been imprisoned for roughly 23 years. The petitioner claims that the decision to reject his request was made without giving proper consideration to all pertinent factors.

Argument Advance 

The petitioner claimed that during the deliberation and denial of the petitioner’s plea for remission, the involved District Judge, who ought to have been a member of the State Sentence Review Board, was not present. 

The respondent authorities contended that the petitioner must submit a new application for remission to be taken into consideration because the last refusal happened in 2022.

Analysis of Court order 

The State Sentence Review Board was given another chance to review the remission application in accordance with the law, pertinent rules, and precedents by a single bench of the Calcutta High Court, which was led by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya.

The Court decided that the State Sentence Review Board’s cryptic comment, which highlighted the petitioner’s offence, local objections, and worries about potential rehabilitation, constituted the basis for the decision of denial. Because the District Judge was not a member of the Board, it was in violation of the National Human Rights Commission Guidelines. Remanding the case for reconsideration in accordance with all the standards and regulations, the State Sentence Review Board. The Court said that the petitioner did not need to submit a new application. The petitioner’s behaviour while incarcerated, probation leave, potential recidivism risks, and adverse effects on the neighbourhood were not adequately taken into account by the State Sentence Review Board. The Review Board hearing did not go into great length about tests like the prisoner’s behaviour while incarcerated, probation leave, and behavioural changes while incarcerated.

The Court ordered the respondent authorities to quickly form a suitable State Sentence Review Board, conduct the reconsideration within three months of the date of the order, and put any other pending remission applications before the Board as soon as possible, preferably within one month. This was done while remanding the case back to the State Sentence Review Board.

CASE NAME – Biresh Poddar v. State of W.B., TN, WPA No. 14257 of 2023