The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner transferred to India from the United Kingdom to serve their sentence can seek remission under the applicable Indian remission policy. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale ruled that the power to grant remission is covered by the expression 'other laws' in Article 10(2) of the Indo-UK Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which vests power in either contracting state to grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence in accordance with the Constitution or other laws.

Source: LiveLaw

2012Year Gurmej Singh was convicted of murder in the United Kingdom
35 yearsMinimum tariff in his life sentence imposed by the UK court
May 2015When he was transferred to India and began serving the remainder of his sentence in Punjab
8 weeksTime given to the Union Government to reconsider his case under the applicable remission policy

The case concerns Gurmej Singh, who was convicted of murder in the United Kingdom in 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 35 years. He was transferred to India in May 2015 under the Indo-UK Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons and served the remainder of his sentence in Punjab. After completing 14 years of imprisonment, he applied for premature release, but the Union Government rejected his application, citing the bar under the bilateral agreement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that rejection, holding that he was required to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by the UK court.

Source: LiveLaw

Before the Supreme Court, Singh relied on Harjeet Singh v State of Punjab & Ors to contend that the benefit of remission under Indian laws is not barred to a person convicted and sentenced by a foreign court. The bench accepted that contention, holding: 'A reading of Article 10(2) of the Indo-UK Agreement would clearly indicate that either of the contracting States may grant pardon, amnesty and commutation, in accordance with the Constitution or other laws. The words "other laws" would certainly include the laws governing remission of sentence.' The court added that the conviction itself is not modified — 'it is only the sentence that stands reduced, by way of a policy decision in the form of remission.'

Source: LiveLaw

Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Union Government to reconsider Singh's case in accordance with the applicable remission policy within eight weeks. The ruling, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1116 in Gurmej Singh v Union of India & Ors, does not itself order his release: it opens the door to remission and leaves the decision to the Union Government under its policy.

Source: LiveLaw judgment record 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1116

What happens next: the Union Government must take a fresh decision on Singh's premature-release application within eight weeks, applying the applicable remission policy. The ruling's wider effect is for other prisoners transferred to India under similar agreements, whose remission applications can no longer be rejected on the ground that the bilateral agreement bars them outright.