Liberty vs. Law: Supreme Court to Examine Whether Abu Salem Has Served His Full Sentence.
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi, 13, January,2026- Gangster Abu Salem has approached the Supreme Court seeking his release in connection with the 1993 Bombay bomb blast case, contending that he has already completed the maximum permissible period of incarceration of 25 years as assured by the Government of India at the time of his extradition from Portugal.
“The present case exemplifies such an egregious violation by the state and jail authorities, wherein the Petitioner, having undergone a total of 25 years of imprisonment as ordered by this Hon’ble court has become a hostage of the system, unlawfully caged without a shred of authority in Law. The continued incarceration of a prisoner after the lawful completion of his sentence, especially when accompanied by self-admitted documents and good conduct, constitutes not only an illegality but also a grave violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 namely, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.” As set forth in the petition…
The matter came up for hearing on January 12 before a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Bench, while not granting any interim relief, directed Salem to place on record the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Prison Rules governing remission. The case has now been listed for further hearing on February 9.
The Supreme Court was hearing Salem’s challenge to an order of the Bombay High Court, which had earlier declined to grant him interim relief. The High Court, while rejecting his plea, observed that the issues raised by Salem regarding the computation of his 25-year incarceration period were arguable and would require detailed examination.
In his petition before the apex court, Salem has asserted that if all legally permissible components of custody are correctly accounted for—namely, his period of undertrial detention, post-conviction incarceration, and the remission earned for good conduct in prison—he would have crossed the 25-year mark by March 31. According to Salem, any detention beyond this period would amount to illegal custody, violative of both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The controversy traces its roots to Salem’s extradition from Portugal. In December 2002, India had furnished a categorical assurance to the Portuguese Republic that Salem, if extradited, would neither be subjected to the death penalty nor be incarcerated for a period exceeding 25 years. Pursuant to this assurance, Salem was extradited and subsequently brought to India in 2005. He was first produced before a designated TADA court on November 11, 2005, in connection with the 1993 Bombay bomb blast case.
Salem faced trial in two separate cases under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act—one relating to the Bombay blasts and another independent case. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgments dated February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively.
Appearing on behalf of Salem, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra emphatically argued that the assurances given by India under the extradition treaty are binding and must be scrupulously honoured. He contended that Salem’s continued incarceration beyond 25 years constitutes a breach of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the defence, the State cannot renege on solemn international commitments made at the time of extradition.
“The law is settled that the power to remit a sentence under S. 432(1) is discretionary and the same cannot be sought as a matter of right. It is submitted that remission is what is earned by the prisoner under the Prison Rules or other relevant rules based on his good behaviour or any other stipulations. The same has to be decided by the Appropriate Government as stipulated under S. 432 and S. 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Art. 72 and Art. 161 of the Constitution.”
Reference was also made to a Gazette Notification dated December 13, 2002, issued by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Extradition Act, 1962, whereby the provisions of the Extradition Act—except Chapter III—were made applicable to the Portuguese Republic with effect from the same date. The notification, it was argued, reinforces the binding nature of the assurances extended to Portugal.
With competing claims involving international treaty obligations, remission rules, and constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court is now set to examine whether Abu Salem’s continued detention withstands judicial scrutiny.
