PART I
Execution of sentences
1. SENTENCE OF DEATH
(1) Execution procedure.
Under Sections 453 and 454 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when a sentence of death passed by a Sessions Court is confirmed by the High Court upon reference under Section 409 BNSS, or when the High Court itself awards the capital punishment on appeal or revision, the Sessions Court is legally mandated to execute the sentence by issuing a prescribed warrant directly to the jail officer.
This statutory workflow establishes that sentence execution remains under judicial control rather than being an exclusive executive domain.
Once the capital punishment is carried out, Section 470 BNSS requires the executing prison official to return the warrant to the issuing Sessions Court, complete with a signed official endorsement certifying the precise manner in which the death sentence was executed.
(2) Postponement of execution of death sentence.
Section 455 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates that the High Court must order the postponement of a death sentence execution whenever there is a viable legal avenue for the convict to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This statutory safeguard prevents the judicial process from becoming meaningless due to hasty execution.
The right to approach the Supreme Court may arise directly under Article 134(1)
(a) or (b), through a High Court certificate of fitness under Article 132 or Article 134(1)
(c), or via a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Under these mechanisms, execution is deferred throughout the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal, during the determination of a certificate of fitness application, or for a reasonable duration allowing the convict to apply for special leave.
If an appeal is accepted or special leave is granted, the Supreme Court stays the sentence execution for the entire duration of the appellate proceedings.
(3) Sentence of death on escaped convict.
Under Section 466(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when a sentence of death is passed on an escaped convict who was actively serving a prior prison sentence at the time of escape, the newly awarded death sentence takes effect immediately.
This statutory provision ensures that the capital punishment supersedes any unexpired term of the former sentence, allowing the court to execute the death penalty without requiring the convict to complete the previous imprisonment first.
2. SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE OR OF IMPRISONMENT
(1) Execution.
Under Section 458(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the execution of a sentence of life imprisonment or term imprisonment requires the trial court to dispatch a formal execution warrant alongside the convict to the designated prison facility, though symbolic sentences like “imprisonment till the rising of the court” are exempt from requiring a jail warrant.
Pursuant to Section 458(2) BNSS, the sentence begins immediately upon pronouncement if the accused is present in court, or on the date of arrest if an arrest warrant must be issued due to the accused’s absence.
Furthermore, Sections 459 and 460 BNSS mandate that every prisoner must have an individual, separate warrant specifying their exact period of confinement lodged directly with the jail superintendent.
To reinforce these procedural rules and curb convicts from absconding after final conviction decisions, the Supreme Court has directed the formation of supervisory committees to actively track nonsurrendering convicts and ensure that trial courts swiftly enforce execution warrants upon the dismissal of appeals or revisions.
(2) Sequence of execution of two or more sentences of imprisonment.
Under Section 467(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the general legal default dictates that when a person already serving a prison sentence receives a subsequent sentence of imprisonment, the new term commences consecutively upon the expiration of the earlier sentence.
However, courts maintain judicial discretion to direct that sentences run concurrently—a power particularly appropriate when separate trials involve closely connected offences.
The High Court can also invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to grant concurrency even if lower courts omitted to do so.
If consecutive sentences were ordered and the initial conviction is subsequently set aside, the second sentence is deemed to have commenced on its original conviction date, with time already served applied toward it.
Conversely, imprisonment ordered in default of paying a fine can never run concurrently with a substantive prison term.
For life imprisonment, Section 467(2) BNSS and Supreme Court jurisprudence by a five-Judge Constitution Bench establish that multiple life sentences cannot run consecutively; instead, they run concurrently and superimpose over each other, ensuring that remission or commutation granted for one conviction does not automatically remit the other.
Finally, court-ordered fines must generally be deposited immediately, and failure to pay within any extended period granted by judicial discretion triggers immediate default imprisonment.
(3) Sentence on escaped convict when to take effect.
Under Section 466(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when a new term of imprisonment is passed upon an escaped convict, the commencement date depends on the severity of the new sentence compared to the sentence being served at the time of escape.
If the newly imposed sentence is more severe in kind, it takes effect immediately.
Conversely, if the new sentence is not severer in kind, it will only commence after the convict has first completed serving the unexpired term remaining on their original sentence.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 466(3) BNSS, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment is legally classified as being severer in kind than a sentence of simple imprisonment.
(4) Pre-conviction detention to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.
Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), establishes that pre-conviction detention undergone during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of a case must be deducted from the final term of imprisonment imposed upon conviction.
This right is invoked via a simple application during the execution of the sentence, though it explicitly excludes periods of imprisonment served in default of fine payments or time spent released on bail.
While set-off is inapplicable to court-martial proceedings and preventive detention under COFEPOSA, Supreme Court rulings have expanded its protection to life convicts, persons sentenced under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, and minimum imprisonment terms governed under Section 475 BNSS.
Furthermore, following the three-Judge Supreme Court Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, an accused subjected to overlapping pre-trial detention across multiple cases is entitled to claim set-off in each respective case, irrespective of whether the sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
However, detention accumulated in a subsequent case while the accused is on bail in an earlier case cannot be credited toward the sentence of the original case.
(5) Return of warrant on execution.
Under Section 470 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), once a criminal sentence has been completely executed, the officer responsible for carrying out the execution is legally required to return the original warrant back to the court that issued it.
This returned warrant must include a signed endorsement written under the officer’s own hand, formally certifying the exact manner in which the sentence was executed to ensure complete judicial verification and record-keeping.
3. SENTENCE OF FINE
(1) Execution by issuing a warrant for levy of fine.
Under Section 461(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a court imposing a sentence of fine has the authority to recover the fine by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the offender’s movable property, or by directing a warrant to the District Collector to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from their movable or immovable assets.
However, if the offender serves the complete term of default imprisonment for failing to pay the fine, the court is generally barred from issuing a levy warrant unless an order for compensation or expenses under Section 395 BNSS has been made, or unless the court records written “special reasons”.
These “special reasons” must specifically account for why the fine could not be recovered prior to the completion of the default imprisonment, whereas the gravity of the underlying crime cannot serve as a valid justification.
Additionally, under Section 462 BNSS, while a court’s attachment warrant operates natively within its local jurisdiction, obtaining an endorsement from the concerned District Magistrate empowers the execution of attachment and sale against the offender’s property situated outside that court’s local territorial boundaries.
(2) Suspension of execution of the sentence of imprisonment in default.
The judge may mandate that the fine be settled entirely within a 30-day window or authorize a structured plan of two to three installments, provided the initial payment occurs within 30 days and subsequent intervals do not exceed 30 days.
To facilitate this, the court can suspend the default jail sentence and release the offender on a bond, ensuring their return on the scheduled payment dates.
Should the offender default on these extended deadlines, the court can instantly enforce the imprisonment.
Separately, Section 469(2) of the BNSS addresses complex sentencing scenarios where an offender has multiple consecutive substantive prison terms alongside a default imprisonment penalty for an unpaid fine.
In such instances, the law mandates that the offender must complete all of their primary, substantive prison sentences first.
Only after these main sentences are fully executed will any default imprisonment for the unpaid fine take effect, ensuring that the penalty for the unpaid fine is served last.
(3) Money ordered to be paid recoverable as a fine.
Under Section 471 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), whenever a court orders a person to pay an amount of money pursuant to any BNSS provision, but no specific statutory mechanism is outlined for its collection, the money will automatically be recoverable as if it were a fine.
This legal rule ensures that any court-ordered monetary liability without an explicit recovery procedure can still be enforced using standard fine-collection methods—such as attaching movable property or realizing the amount as arrears of land revenue.
PART II
Suspension, remission and commutation of sentences
1. MERCY PETITION IN DEATH SENTENCE CASE
Section 472 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) introduces structured, time-bound statutory provisions for filing mercy petitions in capital punishment cases.
Under this framework, a convict facing the death penalty must submit a mercy petition to the Governor within 30 days of being informed by the jail superintendent that their Supreme Court appeal or review was dismissed, or that their High Court death sentence was confirmed and the timeframe to appeal to the Supreme Court has lapsed.
If the Governor rejects or disposes of the mercy petition, the convict has a 60-day window to approach the President of India.
Jail superintendents are tasked with ensuring compliance within a 60-day period; if a convict fails to submit a mercy petition, the superintendent must automatically forward the full case details to the government for review.
Once a petition reaches the Central Government, it must obtain the State Government’s comments and present its recommendations to the President within 60 days.
In multi-convict cases, the President may evaluate all co-convicts’ petitions jointly in the interest of justice, and the President’s final decision is formally relayed back through the Central and State Governments directly to the prison authorities.
2. SUSPENSION OR REMISSION OF SENTENCES
Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), supplementing the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161, grants the appropriate government statutory authority to suspend or remit sentences with or without conditions.
When handling an application, the government may request the trial court’s opinion and case records, and if any condition of suspension is breached, the government must issue a formal cancellation order for the offender to be re-arrested and required to serve the remainder of their sentence.
Jurisprudence confirms that granting remissions is a sovereign executive prerogative rather than a judicial function; courts can direct the government to evaluate a case under established policies, but cannot compel executive remission directly.
Eligibility for premature release is primarily determined by the state policy active on the conviction date—or a subsequent, more beneficial policy—and must be applied non-arbitrarily without special preference for public figures or specific social classes.
While the statutory 14-year minimum actual imprisonment requirement under Section 475 BNSS applies to life convicts, constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain capable of reducing this threshold.
Finally, because a life sentence is legally of indefinite duration, prison rule remissions serve primarily to assist the government in exercising its discretionary power of release, while time spent on parole may count toward imprisonment, unlike periods spent on bail.
3. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
Under Section 456 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if a woman facing a death sentence is found to be pregnant, the High Court is legally obligated to commute her sentence to life imprisonment.
Furthermore, Section 474 of the BNSS empowers the appropriate government to unilaterally commute sentences without requiring the convict’s consent across several categories: a death penalty can be reduced to life imprisonment, a life sentence to a term of not less than 7 years, imprisonment of 7 years or more to a term of not less than 3 years, imprisonment under 7 years to a fine, and rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment.
When a sentence is commuted to a fine, courts routinely attach compliance conditions, where a breach can lead to the revival of the original prison term.
Comparable executive commutation powers are similarly reinforced under Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. RESTRICTION ON POWERS OF REMISSION OR COMMUTATION
Section 475 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) places a mandatory restriction on executive remission and commutation by requiring that any convict sentenced to life imprisonment for an offense carrying the death penalty—or whose capital sentence was commuted to life under Section 474 BNSS—must serve a minimum of 14 actual years of imprisonment before being eligible for release.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this 14-year restriction, affirming that while a life sentence legally spans the entire natural life of the convict, constitutional mercy powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain intact.
Furthermore, statutory remission under Section 473 BNSS cannot be granted suo motu by the executive without an application from the convict and consultation with the sentencing court.
In determining executive authority, the State Government generally holds jurisdiction unless the case falls under Central legislation or federal investigation agencies, in which case the Central Government holds primacy and its consultation is effectively treated as mandatory concurrence.
5. CONCURRENT POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CASE OF DEATH SENTENCES
Under Section 476 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Central Government holds concurrent power alongside State Governments in matters involving capital punishment.
Specifically, the statutory powers granted under Sections 473 and 474 of the BNSS—which allow appropriate authorities to suspend, remit, or commute criminal sentences—can be exercised directly by the Central Government whenever an offender is under a sentence of death.
This provision establishes that for capital offenses, the Central Government possesses independent statutory authority to commute or alter a death sentence regardless of the State Government’s initial jurisdiction.
6. STATE GOVERNMENT TO ACT IN CONCURRENCE WITH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CERTAIN CASES
Section 477 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) establishes a critical check on state power by requiring State Governments to act in concurrence with the Central Government when exercising remission or commutation powers in cases of vital national interest.
Under this provision, whenever a criminal matter falls under specified categories where the Central Government maintains a primary stake—such as offenses investigated by central federal agencies or crimes involving Parliamentary statutes—the State Government cannot unilaterally suspend, remit, or commute a sentence.
Instead, obtaining the express agreement and explicit concurrence of the Central Government is a mandatory prerequisite, ensuring that federal oversight governs sentence reductions in cases impacting central jurisdiction.