CASE COMMENT
Citation: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Decided on 10th September 2026, Coram: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
1. Facts
The petitioner was extradited from Portugal on 11.11.2005 pursuant to a sovereign assurance dated 17.12.2002 that he would not be awarded the death penalty nor suffer imprisonment exceeding 25 years. The TADA Court, Mumbai convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment in two separate cases on 25.02.2015 and 07.09.2017, both directed to run concurrently. As per its 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court held the 25-year period to be reckoned from 11.11.2005, with remission to be considered only thereafter. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court claiming total custody including remission at 26 years, 9 months and 22 days. The High Court dismissed the plea as premature on 15.04.2026.
2. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether the same period of imprisonment can be counted under two separate provisions of law to claim completion of the 25-year term?
(ii) Whether remission earned for good conduct can curtail the 25-year period flowing from the sovereign assurance?
3. Judgment
The Court dismissed the petition as premature.
On Issue (i), the Court held that the petitioner had counted the period between 25.02.2015 and 07.09.2017 twice, both as undertrial and as convict. In view of the concurrent sentences, custody for a single day can be counted only once.
On Issue (ii), the Court held that the sovereign assurance did not commute life imprisonment to a fixed term of 25 years. Remission earned for good conduct cannot be deducted from the assured minimum period of 25 years to be actually undergone.
4. Analysis
The ruling clarifies the nature of extradition assurances. An assurance does not operate as a judicial commutation under Section 418, BNSS, but as an international obligation prescribing a minimum period of actual physical detention.
Further, the decision reaffirms the settled principle of set-off in concurrent sentences. Custody must be computed on the basis of actual physical detention, not on notional or dual classification of the same period as undertrial and convict.
5. Conclusion
This ruling settles the dispute over computation of custody. It underscores that extradition assurances, remission and premature release must be construed within their proper legal framework, with sovereign commitments requiring strict adherence to actual undergone imprisonment.
