New Delhi, September 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Abu Salem, who had sought his release on the ground that his 25-year imprisonment term had already been completed after accounting for his period of undertrial detention, post-conviction incarceration and remission earned for good conduct.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed Salem’s plea after hearing the matter. The judgment had been reserved on July 27.
Salem, currently lodged at Nashik Road Central Prison, had challenged the Bombay High Court’s refusal to direct his immediate release. He argued that his period of detention as an undertrial, imprisonment after conviction and nearly three years of remission earned for good conduct should all be counted towards the 25-year term.
His plea was also based on the sovereign assurance given by India to Portugal at the time of his extradition that he would not be imprisoned for more than 25 years.
The Bombay High Court, however, rejected his claim in its April 15 judgment, holding that the 25-year period fixed by the Supreme Court constituted the substantive sentence Salem was required to undergo and could not be shortened through ordinary prison remission.
Key Points
- Supreme Court: Dismissed Abu Salem’s plea seeking release.
- Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
- Current prison: Nashik Road Central Prison, Maharashtra.
- Arrest in India: November 11, 2005.
- Convictions: In cases arising from the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.
- Original punishment: Life imprisonment in two cases, to run concurrently.
- Supreme Court decision: Life sentences were reduced to a total of 25 years in July 2022.
- Reason: India’s sovereign assurance to Portugal that Salem would not be imprisoned beyond 25 years.
- 25-year period: The Bombay High Court calculated its completion in November 2030.
- Remission: Ordinary prison remission cannot automatically reduce the court-imposed 25-year term.
Salem was extradited from Portugal and brought to India in November 2005. He was produced before the TADA Court on November 11, 2005, in connection with the 1993 Mumbai blasts case.
He was convicted in TADA Case No. 1 of 2006 in February 2015 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was subsequently convicted in another case relating to the 1993 Mumbai blasts in September 2017 and again sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court upheld Salem’s convictions but modified the punishment by restricting his imprisonment to 25 years. The court took into consideration the solemn sovereign assurance given by the Government of India to Portugal during the extradition process.
The apex court had also directed the government to consider any remission under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure one month before completion of the 25-year period.
Bombay High Court’s Reasoning
Before the Bombay High Court, Salem argued that he had already earned nearly three years of remission for good conduct and that, when this was combined with his undertrial detention and subsequent imprisonment, the 25-year period had effectively been completed.
The High Court rejected the argument, observing that remission earned under prison rules is administrative in nature and does not automatically reduce the sentence imposed by a court.
A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that Salem’s attempt to use earned remission to shorten the 25-year period was legally unsustainable.
The High Court calculated the 25-year period from Salem’s arrest on November 11, 2005, meaning the term would expire in November 2030. It also made clear that the sovereign assurance to Portugal could not itself be interpreted as permitting further reduction of the 25-year term through ordinary remission.
The court said any statutory remission or reduction below the 25-year period could be considered only in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions. It further held that the executive’s obligation to formally consider remission would arise one month before completion of the stipulated term.
Earlier Release Plea
Salem had previously approached the Supreme Court seeking premature release based on the extradition arrangement between India and Portugal.
In February, the top court allowed him to withdraw that plea while granting liberty to seek an early hearing of the pending matter before the Bombay High Court.
His latest challenge before the Supreme Court was therefore focused on the interpretation of the 25-year sentence and whether periods of undertrial detention and prison-earned remission could be deducted from it.
With Thursday’s dismissal, the Supreme Court has upheld the position that the 25-year term fixed in view of India’s sovereign assurance to Portugal cannot be reduced merely by applying ordinary prison remission. Any consideration of statutory remission will have to take place in accordance with the legal framework and the directions issued by the apex court.
(Disclaimer :The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)
