Abu Salem Cannot Claim Jail Remission to Reduce 25-Year Extradition Commitment Period

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, convicted under TADA for serious offences including those connected to the 1993 Bombay blasts, was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005 after the Indian Government gave a solemn sovereign assurance that he would not face the death penalty or imprisonment exceeding 25 years. He was convicted in two TADA cases and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment in both, with the sentences directed to run concurrently. In 2022, the Supreme Court held that his detention period would commence from 12 October 2005 and that upon completion of 25 years, the Central Government would be required to consider advising the President under Article 72 or exercise powers under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking release, arguing he had completed over 25 years when undertrial custody, post-conviction custody and jail-earned remission of 3 years, 6 months and 2 days were added together. The High Court dismissed the petition. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant repeated the same arguments. The Court rejected the computation as flawed, finding that the appellant had double-counted the overlapping period from February 2015 to September 2017 — once as undertrial custody for one case and again as post-conviction custody for another. The Court also rejected the claim for jail-earned remission, holding that the 25-year stipulation was only a consequence of the sovereign assurance and did not convert his life sentence into a fixed-term sentence of 25 years. As the sentence remained life imprisonment, the rules on remission applicable to fixed-term sentences could not be applied. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Abu Salem was extradited from Portugal to India in November 2005 after the Indian Government assured Portugal that he would not face the death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years. He was convicted in two TADA cases in 2015 and 2017 and sentenced to life imprisonment in both, with sentences running concurrently. In 2022, the Supreme Court fixed 12 October 2005 as the starting date of his detention and directed the Executive to consider his release upon completion of 25 years.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in limine, upholding the Bombay High Court's judgment. It held that the appellant had not completed 25 years of detention as computed correctly from 12 October 2005, that the double-counting of the overlapping period was impermissible, and that jail-earned remission could not be added since the sentence remained life imprisonment and not a fixed-term sentence of 25 years.

This judgment clarifies that a sovereign extradition assurance sets only the outer limit of detention and does not convert a life sentence into a fixed-term sentence, preventing any artificial inflation of custody periods. It also establishes that overlapping custody periods cannot be double-counted to advance release. For ordinary citizens, it reinforces that serious offenders cannot use procedural technicalities to circumvent their lawful sentences.