The Supreme Court has declined to grant immediate relief to gangster and 1993 Mumbai serial blast convict Abu Salem after questioning his claim that he has completed a 25-year prison sentence, a threshold that could make him eligible for release under the terms of his extradition from Portugal. The court sought clarity on how the duration of incarceration was calculated and directed Salem’s legal team to place relevant jail rules on record, signalling that the issue of remission and sentence computation will be examined in detail before any decision is taken.
Court scrutiny over sentence calculation and remission claims
A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised pointed questions while hearing Abu Salem’s petition seeking release. Salem’s counsel submitted that he was taken into custody on November 11, 2005, the day he was extradited from Portugal, and argued that he has since completed 25 years of imprisonment. This assertion, however, immediately drew skepticism from the bench.
The judges questioned the arithmetic behind the claim, asking how a period beginning in 2005 could amount to 25 years of incarceration as of now. The bench specifically asked whether the calculation included remissions earned under jail rules for good conduct. The court’s query highlighted the legal distinction between actual years spent in custody and the benefit of remissions, which can reduce the effective sentence period but do not necessarily equate to time physically spent in prison.
In response, the court directed Salem’s lawyer to file the applicable jail rules and remission provisions within two weeks. These documents will be crucial in determining whether remissions can be counted toward fulfilling the 25-year cap stipulated in Salem’s extradition agreement. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 9, indicating that the court intends to examine the issue in a structured and methodical manner rather than grant immediate relief.
Abu Salem, a key accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, was extradited from Portugal on November 11, 2005, after prolonged legal proceedings. As part of the extradition conditions agreed upon by India, Salem cannot be awarded the death penalty and cannot be imprisoned for more than 25 years. These assurances were central to Portugal’s decision to hand him over, making the interpretation of the 25-year limit a matter of international legal obligation as well as domestic law.
Legal background, extradition assurances, and ongoing review
Salem’s current petition before the Supreme Court arises from a July order of the Bombay High Court, which acknowledged that he had completed 25 years of incarceration if remissions for good conduct were taken into account. However, despite this recognition, the High Court did not grant interim relief or order his release, prompting Salem to approach the apex court.
The legal history of the case reflects the complexity surrounding long-term sentences, remission policies, and extradition commitments. In February 2015, a special TADA court sentenced Salem to life imprisonment for the 1995 murder of Mumbai builder Pradeep Jain. Over the years, Salem has been convicted in multiple cases linked to organised crime and terrorism, reinforcing the gravity of the offences for which he is serving time.
The Supreme Court has previously addressed the issue of extradition assurances in Salem’s case. In July 2022, it directed the Union government to honour its commitment to Portugal and ensure that Salem is released upon completion of the 25-year sentence limit applicable to the 1993 Mumbai blast case. That direction reaffirmed India’s obligation to adhere to international agreements while balancing domestic sentencing laws.
The present proceedings, however, revolve around a narrower but critical question: whether Salem has in fact completed the stipulated period. The court’s insistence on precise calculations underscores the importance of transparency and consistency in applying remission rules. While remissions are a recognised part of India’s prison system and are often granted for good conduct, their role in satisfying fixed-term caps under extradition treaties remains a legally sensitive issue.
By asking Salem’s counsel to place the relevant jail rules on record, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will examine whether remissions can be counted in the same manner as actual incarceration when an extradition agreement sets a maximum limit. The outcome of this examination will not only affect Salem’s case but could also have implications for other extradited convicts whose sentences are governed by similar international assurances.
For now, Abu Salem remains in custody, with the court making it clear that claims of sentence completion must be backed by clear legal provisions and accurate calculations. The forthcoming hearing is expected to focus on the interplay between remission policies, actual time served, and the binding nature of extradition terms, an issue that sits at the intersection of criminal law, constitutional principles, and international commitments.
