Supreme Court dismisses Abu Salem’s premature release plea in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, rejecting his claim over remission and the 25-year cap.
The Supreme Court has refused to grant premature release to 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Abu Salem, who relied on India’s extradition assurances to Portugal and claimed that remission and undertrial custody should count towards the 25-year limit.
The Supreme Court has dismissed gangster Abu Salem’s plea seeking premature release from imprisonment in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the verdict after considering Salem’s contention that the period spent as an undertrial and the remission earned during his imprisonment should be taken into account while calculating the 25-year imprisonment limit arising from India’s extradition assurances to Portugal.
The decision comes after the Supreme Court had reserved its order in July 2026 following arguments on the manner in which the 25-year period was required to be calculated.
Abu Salem’s Claim Over 25-Year Imprisonment Limit
Abu Salem was extradited to India from Portugal and subsequently faced prosecution in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. At the time of his extradition, India had assured Portugal that Salem would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for a term exceeding 25 years.
The assurance became significant in the subsequent proceedings concerning the duration of his imprisonment. In 2022, the Supreme Court had recognised the binding nature of the assurance given by India to Portugal and held that the 25-year period would have to be honoured by the Union Government.
Relying on this assurance, Salem argued that he had effectively completed the stipulated period when his undertrial custody and earned remission were taken into account.
His legal team contended that the period spent in custody before conviction could not be ignored and that remission earned for good conduct in prison should also form part of the calculation.
Supreme Court Rejects Premature Release Claim
The plea was opposed on the ground that the 25-year period arising from the extradition assurance could not be reduced further by applying ordinary prison remission.
The Bombay High Court had earlier rejected Salem’s plea, holding that the 25-year period contemplated by the Supreme Court had not yet expired. The High Court had calculated the period from November 11, 2005, when Salem was brought to India, and held that the relevant period would be completed only in November 2030.
The High Court had further observed that permitting earned remission to reduce the 25-year period would effectively provide an additional reduction to a sentence that had already been limited because of the extradition assurance.
Salem had challenged this reasoning before the Supreme Court, maintaining that earned remission and the period spent as an undertrial ought to be considered while determining whether the 25-year ceiling had already been reached.
Extradition Assurance And Indian Law
The case raises an important legal issue concerning the relationship between extradition assurances and the sentencing powers exercised under Indian law.
India’s assurance to Portugal was central to Salem’s extradition. The Supreme Court has previously acknowledged that the assurance was binding upon the executive and that the 25-year limit had to be respected.
However, the present dispute concerned how that period should be computed and whether prison remission could operate to bring forward the date of release.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal means that Salem’s claim for immediate or premature release on the basis of his calculation has failed.
The ruling also reinforces the distinction between a remission granted under prison rules and the 25-year ceiling arising from an international extradition assurance.
The development will be closely watched for its implications on cases where foreign extradition conditions intersect with India’s criminal justice and prison-remission framework.
For more legal developments, readers can follow The Legal Observer’s latest legal news and its national legal coverage.
Further updates and legal discussions are available on The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
