The Supreme Court of India has ruled that remission of sentence cannot be denied solely because the offence committed was heinous in nature. In Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court emphasized that authorities must take a fair, holistic, and reasoned decision while considering premature release of prisoners under remission policies. The case arose from the 2003 Madhumita murder case, where the petitioner had already spent more than 22 years in prison with satisfactory conduct. Although the Uttarakhand Government recommended his premature release, the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the remission plea only on the ground of the seriousness of the offence. The Supreme Court held that remission is different from sentencing and focuses on rehabilitation, reformation, prison conduct, and reintegration into society rather than merely the past crime. The Court strongly criticized the government’s cryptic and non-speaking order, stating that decisions affecting personal liberty must comply with Article 14, Article 21, and principles of natural justice. Reaffirming the reformative theory of punishment, the Court quashed the rejection order and directed the prisoner’s premature release.