The Supreme Court has disposed of an application filed by convicted terrorist Abu Salem who asked for premature release under the Extradition Treaty between India and Portugal. Salem was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in the 1993 Bombay Blast case.
The Court refused to grant the relief he sought, but allowed him the liberty to approach the High Court and pursue appropriate remedies there.
Salem had requested that 3 years and 16 days of remission earned for good conduct be added while calculating his 25-year sentence. He argued that if this period is included, he would become eligible for premature release.
Rules On Remission Placed Before Court:
In support of his plea, he relied on a Supreme Court’s judgment dated July 2002, passed in the context of the India-Portugal Extradition Treaty, which stated that he would be entitled to release after completion of 25 years of imprisonment.
The State of Maharashtra, opposed Salem’s request, asserting that Salem has not yet completed the stipulated 25-year period.
Previously, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta had asked Salem to place on record the relevant rules in Maharashtra that apply to granting remission to a convict under the TADA Act.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Abu Salem, relied on Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, which lists different kinds of remission. He said the present claim was limited only to ordinary remission and annual good conduct remission.
Earlier Bombay High Court Proceedings:
When Justice Mehta inquired as to which order was under challenge before the Court, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra submitted that Salem had approached the Supreme Court following proceedings before the Bombay High Court, where he had sought premature release.
It may be recalled that Salem had moved the High Court earlier, asking it to direct the authorities to fix a date for his release after completing 25 years of imprisonment. He argued that keeping him in jail beyond the stipulated 25-year period allegedly agreed by Indian authorities under the Extradition Treaty with Portugal violated his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
High Court’s Prima Facie Finding (July 2025):
In July 2025, however, the High Court prima facie observed that Salem had not yet completed 25 years of imprisonment. Referring to the Supreme Court’s earlier order, which treated October 12, 2005 as the date of his arrest and provided release after completion of 25 years, the High Court upheld the order of the TADA Court rejecting his plea for premature release.
“I have surpassed 10 months; it is the case of habeas corpus, illegal custody,” Malhotra added. He further clarified that if it is demonstrated that Salem has not completed 25 years of imprisonment, he would abide by the requirement of serving the stipulated sentence.
“Not Habeas Corpus”: Supreme Court’s View
In response, Justice Mehta told him to move an appropriate application before the High Court challenging the interim findings. The Bench observed that the matter was “certainly not the case of habeas corpus, but an appeal.”
Malhotra thereafter referred to the additional affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Prisons before the Bombay High Court, contending that the State’s assertion that Salem had not completed 25 years of imprisonment was an “arithmetical error.”
Before the High Court, the Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services had submitted that, as of March 31, 2025, Salem had undergone 19 years, 5 months, and 18 days of imprisonment.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that the correctness of the affidavit would have to be examined by the High Court in appropriate proceedings. He stressed that the Supreme Court cannot be expected to handle matters that are pending before the High Courts.
Petition Dismissed With Liberty:
The bench stated, "Mr Rishi Malhotra, learned senior counsel, after arguing for sometime states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to go before the High Court for an early hearing and disposal of the pending matter. Petition is dismissed with liberty,"
When Malhotra reiterated his submission that Salem had been in illegal custody for over 10 months, Justice Nath reminded him of the nature of the conviction, noting that Salem had been found guilty under the TADA Act.
Strong Remarks On TADA Conviction:
“You have stayed for 25 years for not doing something good to the society. You have been convicted under TADA,” Justice Nath remarked.
Case Title: ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., Diary No. 60531-2025
