No Double Counting: Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Claim That His 25-Year Extradition Limit Is Over

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Abu Salem seeking release on the basis that he had completed 25 years of incarceration, the outer limit in India’s sovereign assurance to Portugal. It held that overlapping custody for concurrent sentences cannot be counted twice, that jail-earned remission cannot be added because his sentence remains life imprisonment, and that the 2022 judgment did not convert life sentences into 25-year terms.

India assured Portugal in December 2002 that the appellant, if extradited, would not face the death penalty or imprisonment over 25 years. He was extradited in November 2005, and was later sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment by the TADA Court in 2015 and again in 2017, the second sentence running concurrently. In 2022 the Supreme Court fixed the commencement of his detention, refused set-off for time in Portugal, and directed that after 25 years the Central Government would advise the President under Article 72, with remission powers also available.

The appellant sought release in the Bombay High Court, claiming 26 years, 9 months and 22 days of custody as on 30 June 2026 by adding undertrial custody, post-conviction custody from the earlier conviction, and jail-earned remission. The High Court dismissed his petition on 15 April 2026.

The Key Question Before the Court

Has the appellant completed the 25-year period under the extradition assurance when custody periods for concurrent sentences and jail remission are counted as he proposes?

Outer Limit, Not a Fixed Sentence

The Court found that the appellant used inconsistent starting points, counting undertrial custody from arrest and post-conviction custody from the 2015 conviction, so that the period from February 2015 to September 2017 was counted twice. “The same period of incarceration cannot, therefore, be notionally counted twice,” it said, and the computation must follow the 2022 directions.

The Court held that the 2022 judgment only set out the consequence of the sovereign assurance; “This Court did not convert the appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment into a sentence of 25 years.” Since the sentence remains life imprisonment, jail-earned remission cannot be added to shorten it. Yovehel, Swamy Shraddananda and V. Sriharan were distinguished as not involving an extradition assurance.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appellant has not completed 25 years of incarceration on a correct computation.
• Overlapping custody for concurrent sentences cannot be counted twice.
• Jail-earned remission cannot be added, as the sentence remains life imprisonment.
• The High Court’s judgment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It clarifies how custody is computed under an extradition assurance.
• It confirms that a sovereign assurance caps, but does not reduce, a life sentence.
• It confirms that the 2022 Article 72 mechanism remains the route after 25 years.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Use a single consistent starting point for computing custody under concurrent sentences.
• Check whether remission claims fit the nature of the sentence imposed.

For Prosecutors and Prison Authorities

• Compute custody strictly as directed by the court.
• Keep jail records reconciled with court-fixed dates.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The Court only held that 25 years are not yet complete; the 2022 directions on Article 72 remain.

Because his sentence remains life imprisonment, not a fixed 25-year term.

No. The Court treated it as an outer limit that does not permit double-counting.

Conclusion