Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Plea for Early Release, Faults Calculation of Prison Time

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea filed by convicted gangster Abu Salem, who sought release on the grounds that he had completed 25 years of incarceration. The apex court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, ruled that the convict had incorrectly calculated his undertrial period to claim an unlawful “double benefit” regarding his sentences.

The Issue of ‘Double Counting’

The core of the dispute lay in how Salem calculated his time served. Salem, who has been convicted in two separate terror-related cases—one in 2015 and the other in 2017—had argued that his undertrial detention should be applied to both life sentences simultaneously.

Although the trial courts had directed the sentences to run concurrently, the Supreme Court clarified that this procedural alignment does not entitle a convict to count the same period of incarceration twice. Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, emphasized that concurrent sentences operate simultaneously, and therefore, a prisoner cannot utilize a single period of pre-conviction custody to offset two separate terms. The court noted that Salem attempted to treat the time spent in custody as “undertrial time” for one sentence while simultaneously counting it as “post-conviction time” for the other to secure an early exit.

Sovereignty and Judicial Authority

A critical aspect of the case involved the 2005 extradition of Salem from Portugal. At the time, the Indian government provided a solemn diplomatic assurance to the Portuguese authorities that Salem would not be subjected to the death penalty or a prison term exceeding 25 years.

Salem argued that this sovereign guarantee should essentially cap his imprisonment at 25 years. However, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. The bench clarified that while the executive branch is bound by the diplomatic assurance given to a foreign nation, that commitment does not interfere with the judiciary’s power to determine guilt and assign sentences based on domestic law.

“The prescription of the nature and extent of punishment is governed by the Legislature and its application to the facts of a particular case falls within the domain of the Judiciary,” the court stated. The judges further observed that the assurance does not convert a life sentence into a fixed-term sentence of 25 years; rather, it acts as a limit on the executive’s power to detain him, which will be addressed at the appropriate time based on the sovereign commitment.

Future Implications for the Convict

Following the court’s ruling, the government’s calculation remains the standard for Salem’s incarceration. According to an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, Salem is categorized among those sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment. After accounting for all applicable set-offs and remissions, the authorities have projected his probable release date to be January 31, 2046.

By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has effectively upheld the government’s timeline, ensuring that Salem remains in custody for the foreseeable future. The ruling serves as a stern precedent, confirming that concurrent sentences do not provide a loophole for convicts to inflate their “time served” and manipulate the statutory requirements for remission or release.

Disclaimer: This content is auto-generated for informational purposes only.

Source: Read Original News