Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Early Release Plea

Gangster Abu Salem, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, has suffered a major setback in the Supreme Court. The apex court has rejected his plea seeking premature release from his life sentence.

Salem had argued that he had effectively completed the 25-year period linked to the assurance given by India at the time of his extradition from Portugal. He sought credit for the period spent as an undertrial prisoner as well as remission earned for good conduct.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to accept the argument and declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s earlier order rejecting his plea.

 Bench Finds No Reason to Interfere With High Court Order

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

The bench found no legal error in the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had held that the relevant 25-year period would be completed in 2030.

Salem had challenged that order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the calculation should take into account the time he had already spent in custody and the remission granted to him during his imprisonment.

The Supreme Court has now upheld the position taken by the High Court by dismissing his plea.

 Salem Claimed He Had Completed 25 Years

The central argument made on Salem’s behalf was that he had already completed the required 25-year period when the time spent as an undertrial and the remission earned through good conduct were taken into account.

His counsel argued that the period spent in custody before conviction should form part of the calculation and that the remission granted for good conduct should also be considered while determining whether the 25-year period had been completed.

Salem also relied on the assurance given by India during the extradition process from Portugal, under which the period relevant to his punishment was limited to 25 years.

 Extradition Assurance Became a Key Issue

The legal dispute largely revolved around the nature of the assurance given by India at the time of Salem’s extradition.

Salem’s argument was that the 25-year limit should be treated as the maximum period he could be required to remain in prison. Therefore, according to his counsel, time spent in custody and remission earned under applicable rules should be considered while calculating the period.

The authorities, however, maintained a different interpretation of the assurance. The courts were required to determine whether the 25-year period could be reduced through remission in the same manner as an ordinary prison sentence.

 Why Did the High Court Reject His Plea?

The Bombay High Court had rejected Salem’s plea after examining the issue. The High Court held that the 25-year period arising from the extradition assurance could not simply be treated as an ordinary fixed-term sentence that could be reduced by remission.

On that basis, the court concluded that the relevant period would be completed in 2030.

Salem subsequently approached the Supreme Court and challenged the High Court’s interpretation.

 Supreme Court Reserved Judgment on July 27

The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment in the matter on July 27 after hearing arguments from the parties.

During the previous hearing, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Salem, presented detailed arguments in support of his request for premature release.

After hearing the arguments, the court had indicated that it was inclined to dismiss the plea. However, it reserved the order and allowed the parties to submit written arguments and relevant supporting judgments before the final decision.

The court has now dismissed the plea.

 Salem’s Counsel Cited Undertrial Period

Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra argued that the period Salem spent in custody as an undertrial should be deducted from the relevant sentence calculation, in accordance with the directions of the TADA court.

He also argued that remission earned for good conduct should be counted while calculating the actual period of imprisonment.

His counsel distinguished this remission from statutory remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He clarified that Salem was not seeking a separate statutory remission under that provision.

Instead, the argument was that the remission already earned under prison rules should be taken into account while determining whether the 25-year period had been completed.

 Good Conduct Remission Also Cited

Salem’s counsel told the court that he had already received around three years and two months of remission for good conduct.

The defence also argued that other prisoners had been released after similar remission was taken into account. According to the argument, Salem’s case should not be treated differently when calculating the period of imprisonment.

The court, however, did not accept these submissions as a basis for granting premature release.

 Legal Dispute Over Calculation of 25-Year Period

The core legal issue in the case concerned the interpretation and calculation of the 25-year period.

Salem’s side argued that custody as an undertrial and remission earned for good conduct should both be considered. According to this interpretation, he had already completed the relevant period.

The courts, however, treated the extradition assurance differently from a conventional fixed-term sentence. The High Court had concluded that the period could not be reduced simply by applying ordinary remission rules.

The Supreme Court has now declined to interfere with that interpretation.

 Abu Salem Convicted in 1993 Mumbai Serial Blasts Case

Abu Salem was convicted in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case. The serial explosions had caused widespread devastation and claimed numerous lives.

His present plea was specifically related to the calculation of his period of imprisonment and his request for premature release.

With the Supreme Court rejecting his plea, Salem has not received the early release he was seeking. The court’s decision keeps the earlier position regarding the completion of the relevant 25-year period intact.