Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Supreme Court of India   •   10 September 2026   •   2026 INSC 982
Case Summary
The Supreme Court held that India's sovereign assurance to Portugal limiting Abu Salem's imprisonment to 25 years did not convert his judicially imposed life sentences into a fixed 25-year term. Jail-earned remission therefore could not be used to accelerate completion of the stipulated 25-year period.
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath.
Area of Law: Criminal Law / Extradition — Sovereign Assurance, Life Imprisonment, Remission & Computation of Sentence
Citation: 2026 INSC 982
Date: 10 September 2026

Legal Issue

Whether Abu Salem had already completed the 25-year maximum period of incarceration contemplated by the sovereign assurance given by the Government of India to Portugal by taking into account:

- his periods of undertrial and post-conviction custody;
- alleged overlapping periods of detention; and
- approximately 3 years, 6 months and 2 days of jail-earned remission.

The Court was also required to determine the legal effect of India's sovereign assurance, specifically, whether the assurance effectively converted the judicially imposed life sentences into a fixed term of 25 years, thereby permitting ordinary jail remission to be deducted from that period.

The impugned judgment was delivered by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2025 on 15 April 2026.

Brief Facts

Abu Salem was sought to be extradited from Portugal to India in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him.

On 17 December 2002, the Government of India gave a solemn sovereign assurance to Portugal that, upon extradition, Salem would neither be subjected to the death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years.

Portugal permitted his extradition on 29 March 2003. His custody was handed over to Indian authorities on 10 November 2005, and he was extradited to India on 11 November 2005.

He was subsequently convicted in two cases:

TADA Case No. 1 of 2006:
On 25 February 2015, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

BBC Case No. 1 of 1993:
On 7 September 2017, he was again convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, with that sentence directed to run concurrently with the earlier life sentence.

In an earlier judgment dated 11 July 2022, the Supreme Court considered India's sovereign commitment to Portugal and determined that, for the purpose of the 25-year period, Salem's detention would be reckoned from 12 October 2005.

The Court further directed that upon completion of 25 years, the Central Government would be required to take appropriate steps to honour the sovereign assurance, including through the constitutional/statutory mechanisms of Article 72 of the Constitution or Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.

Salem subsequently approached the Bombay High Court through a writ petition seeking habeas corpus and mandamus, contending that he had already completed the 25-year period when his custody and earned remission were properly calculated.

The Bombay High Court rejected the contention on 15 April 2026.

He then approached the Supreme Court.

Case: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12871 of 2026.

Held / Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in limine and upheld the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Court held that Salem had not completed the stipulated period of 25 years.

The starting point had already been conclusively fixed by the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment as 12 October 2005. Salem could not artificially advance completion of that period by separately counting overlapping periods of undertrial and post-conviction custody.

The Court further rejected his claim that jail-earned remission of 3 years, 6 months and 2 days should be added to actual incarceration so as to treat the 25-year period as already completed.

Crucially, the Court held that the sovereign assurance given to Portugal did not convert Salem's life sentences into a fixed sentence of 25 years.

His sentences remained sentences of life imprisonment.

The 25-year stipulation operated because of India's international sovereign commitment and imposed an obligation upon the Executive to take appropriate steps upon completion of that period. It did not judicially modify the life sentences themselves.

Consequently, jail-earned remission could not be used in the manner proposed by Salem to accelerate the 25-year period.

Appeal dismissed in limine.

Important Observations

1. Sovereign assurance does not alter the judicial sentence
The Court drew an important distinction between the sentence imposed by a court and an assurance given by the Executive during extradition.

Salem continued to serve sentences of life imprisonment. The assurance that he would not remain imprisoned beyond 25 years did not transform those sentences into fixed-term sentences.

2. The 25-year period begins from 12 October 2005
The commencement date had already been conclusively determined in the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment.

Therefore, the computation had to proceed from 12 October 2005.

3. Overlapping custody cannot be counted twice
A prisoner cannot artificially enlarge the period of incarceration by separately counting overlapping periods as undertrial custody and post-conviction custody.

The actual period of incarceration must be calculated chronologically without duplication.

4. Jail-earned remission does not advance the 25-year assurance period
Salem claimed the benefit of 3 years, 6 months and 2 days of earned remission.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument because the underlying judicial sentence remained life imprisonment, rather than a fixed 25-year sentence.

5. The extradition assurance remains binding
The Court did not dilute India's sovereign commitment to Portugal.

The assurance remains operative: India is required to ensure that Salem is not imprisoned beyond the stipulated maximum in accordance with the mechanism already laid down by the Supreme Court.

The dispute concerned how the 25-year period was to be computed, not whether the assurance had to be honoured.

6. Separation of powers is central
The judgment distinguishes the institutional roles of the three branches:

Legislature: prescribes punishment through law.

Judiciary: imposes the appropriate sentence upon conviction.

Executive: exercises statutory or constitutional powers concerning remission, commutation and release.

An executive sovereign assurance given during extradition does not, by itself, rewrite a sentence judicially imposed by a competent court.

7. Precedents must be applied in their factual and legal context
The Court rejected the mechanical application of remission principles from other life-imprisonment cases because Salem's case involved the distinct circumstance of a sovereign assurance made in extradition proceedings.

Full Headnote

Criminal Law — Extradition — Sovereign Assurance — Life Imprisonment — Maximum Period of 25 Years — Computation of Sentence — Jail-Earned Remission — Undertrial Custody — Overlapping Periods of Incarceration — Article 72 of Constitution — Sections 432 and 433 CrPC — Separation of Powers — Habeas Corpus

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to direct his release from custody on the ground that he had allegedly completed the maximum period of imprisonment contemplated under the sovereign assurance given by the Government of India to Portugal at the time of his extradition.

The Government of India had given a solemn sovereign assurance to Portugal that, following extradition, the appellant would neither be subjected to the death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years. Pursuant to the extradition, Salem was subsequently convicted by the competent TADA Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life in two cases, with the sentences directed to operate concurrently.

In its earlier judgment dated 11 July 2022, the Supreme Court had recognised the binding nature of the sovereign commitment and determined that, for purposes of computation, Salem's detention would commence from 12 October 2005. It further directed that upon completion of 25 years, the Central Government would be required to take appropriate steps to honour India's commitment, including through the constitutional or statutory mechanisms available under Article 72 of the Constitution and Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.

Salem subsequently claimed that he had already completed the stipulated period by combining his periods of undertrial and post-conviction detention and by taking into account 3 years, 6 months and 2 days of jail-earned remission.

Held: The appellant had not completed the period of 25 years contemplated under the sovereign assurance.

The computation had to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court's earlier determination fixing 12 October 2005 as the commencement date. Overlapping periods of incarceration could not be counted more than once merely by characterising them differently as undertrial and post-conviction custody.

The sovereign assurance given by the Government of India to Portugal imposed an international obligation upon the Executive but did not alter the nature of the sentences imposed by the competent criminal court.

The appellant continued to serve sentences of life imprisonment. The 25-year stipulation was therefore not equivalent to a judicial sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term of 25 years.

Accordingly, the appellant could not treat jail-earned remission as reducing a supposed fixed 25-year sentence and thereby accelerate the date on which the sovereign assurance became operational.

The Court emphasised the constitutional distinction between the judicial function of imposing punishment and the Executive's authority regarding remission, commutation and implementation of international commitments.

The 2022 judgment had not commuted Salem's life imprisonment to 25 years. Rather, it had recognised the sovereign assurance and specified what the Executive must do upon completion of the stipulated period.

The Court further held that precedents concerning remission must be understood with reference to their ratio decidendi and material factual context. Decisions concerning ordinary remission of life sentences could not automatically determine a case involving a specific sovereign assurance made as a condition of extradition.

Finding no illegality in Salem's continued detention and no infirmity in the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the impugned decision.

Appeal dismissed in limine.

Legal Significance

The judgment is important for Indian extradition and sentencing jurisprudence because it clarifies the distinction between:

(a) the judicial sentence imposed upon a convicted person; and
(b) an executive sovereign assurance given to a foreign State as a condition of extradition.

A sovereign assurance limiting the maximum period of incarceration does not automatically convert an existing life sentence into a fixed-term sentence.

The decision also clarifies that ordinary concepts of jail-earned remission cannot necessarily be used to accelerate the expiry of a period stipulated under an extradition assurance, particularly where the judicial sentence itself continues to be life imprisonment.

Finally, the judgment reinforces separation of powers: sentencing belongs to the judicial domain, while remission, commutation and implementation of sovereign extradition commitments operate within the constitutional and statutory powers of the Executive.

View Original Judgment
Disclaimer: This case summary and headnote are provided for informational and educational purposes. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the complete text and authoritative legal position.