Sections 432–435 CrPC vs Sections 473–477 BNSS — Suspension, Remission and Commutation of Sentences

In India, Sections 473 to 477 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 432 to 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. Remission is unchanged in substance, but the commutation list is rewritten (Section 474) and a State now needs the Centre's "concurrence", not "consultation" (Section 477).

At a glance

These sections create no offence, so no First Schedule classification applies. They form Part E ("Suspension, remission and commutation of sentences") of Chapter XXXII of the CrPC and Chapter XXXIV of the BNSS.

What changed

• Modified — proviso to Section 473(5) (CrPC 432(5)): "passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years" becomes "passed on a person above the age of eighteen years". The rule — a petition is not entertained unless the person sentenced is in jail, and is presented through the jail officer or carries a declaration that he is in jail — now applies to women as well.
• Minor edit — rest of Section 473: "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita" in sub-section (6); sub-section (7) refers to Section 474 for Section 433. Sub-sections (1) to (4) are word for word the same.
• Modified — Section 474 (CrPC 433): the clauses are rewritten:
  • (a) death: "for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code" → "for imprisonment for life";
  • (b) life imprisonment: "for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine" → "for imprisonment for a term not less than seven years";
  • (c) new: "a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more, for imprisonment for a term not less than three years";
  • (d) new: "a sentence of imprisonment for less than seven years, for fine";
  • (e) rigorous imprisonment: "for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine" → the same words without "or for fine";
  • CrPC clause (d) (simple imprisonment → fine) has no separate counterpart; on a reading of the text, a simple-imprisonment sentence of less than seven years falls within new clause (d).
• Minor edit — Section 475 (CrPC 433A): references to Sections 473 and 474 for Sections 432 and 433. Section 433A was inserted in the CrPC by Act 45 of 1978 with effect from 18 December 1978.
• Minor edit — Section 476 (CrPC 434): Sections 473 and 474 for Sections 432 and 433.
• Modified — Section 477(1) (CrPC 435(1)): "shall not be exercised by the State Government except after consultation with the Central Government" becomes "except after concurrence with the Central Government", and the heading changes to match. Clause (a) drops "the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, or by any other" and now reads "which was investigated by any agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Sanhita". The separators become "; or". Sub-section (2) is unchanged.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 433(a)–(b) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;

Extract, Section 474 BNSS:

The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute— (a) a sentence of death, for imprisonment for life; (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not less than seven years; (c) a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more, for imprisonment for a term not less than three years; (d) a sentence of imprisonment for less than seven years, for fine;

Extract, Section 477(1) BNSS, closing words:

shall not be exercised by the State Government except after concurrence with the Central Government.

How it works — from application to release

1. Who decides (Section 473(7)): the "appropriate Government" is the Central Government where the sentence is for an offence against a law on a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; otherwise the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced. Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 separately allows commutation "in accordance with section 474" and carries its own Explanation defining the appropriate Government.
2. Application (Section 473(2), (5)): the appropriate Government may ask the presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court for a reasoned opinion and the trial record. For any sentence other than fine on a person above eighteen, a petition is entertained only if the person is in jail.
3. Decision (Section 473(1), (4)): suspension or remission may be unconditional or on conditions the convict accepts; a condition may be one the convict must fulfil or one independent of his will.
4. The floor (Section 475): for life imprisonment imposed for an offence for which death is a punishment, or a death sentence commuted to life under Section 474, release requires at least fourteen years served.
5. Central role (Sections 476–477): the Central Government may also act in death sentences; the State needs Central concurrence where the investigating agency is empowered under a Central Act other than the Sanhita, where Central Government property was involved, or where a Central Government servant acted in the discharge of official duty; and where concurrent sentences include offences within Union executive power, a State order has no effect without a matching Central order (Section 477(2)).
6. Cancellation (Section 473(3)): if a condition is not fulfilled, the Government may cancel; the person may, if at large, be arrested without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion.
7. Other orders (Section 473(6)): the same powers apply to any Criminal Court order that restricts liberty or imposes a liability on a person or his property.

What this means in practice

For the convict and family

• Apply to the appropriate Government, through the jail officer where the convict is in jail (Section 473(5) proviso). Where the State has a remission policy, the case must be considered when eligible even without an application (Policy Strategy, below).
• A rejection must carry brief reasons and be communicated through the prison; the prison authorities must tell the convict of the right to challenge it (Policy Strategy, para 21(d)).
• If a remission condition is vague — "behave decently" was struck down in Mafabhai — it can be challenged under Article 14.

For the State prison and home department

• In a CBI case, the State's decision under Section 473(1) goes to the Centre for concurrence under Section 477(1); Rohit Chaturvedi holds that the Centre's refusal must be reasoned and cannot rest only on the heinousness of the crime.
• Section 475 is a floor, not an entitlement: release before fourteen years is barred in the cases it covers.

For the advocate

• Commutation of a life sentence under Section 474(b) is to "a term not less than seven years" — a floor with no ceiling stated. On a reading of the text, that is a different instrument from Section 433(b) CrPC, which capped the substituted term at fourteen years.

Judgments that still matter

Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1196 (1980 INSC 212) — 11 November 1980. A Constitution Bench upheld Section 433A CrPC. The opinion of Krishna Iyer J. (for Chandrachud C.J., Bhagwati J. and himself) recorded: "We repulse all the thrusts on the vires of s. 433A" (finding 1); that Sections 432 and 433 "are not a manifestation of Articles 72 and 161" but a separate, though similar, power, and that Section 433A, by nullifying them wholly or partially, does not detract from the constitutional power to pardon and commute (finding 4); that Section 433A does not contravene Article 20(1) (finding 5); and that it is prospective, not operating against those convicted by the trial court before 18 December 1978 (finding 7) (report pp. 1248–1249). Fazal Ali J. and Koshal J. gave separate concurring opinions; Koshal J. agreed with findings (2) to (11), (13) and (14) and the first sentence of finding (1). Section 475 BNSS repeats Section 433A's operative words.

Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 S.C.R. 613 (2015 INSC 886) — 2 December 2015. A five-Judge Constitution Bench. Kalifulla J. (for Dattu C.J., Ghose J. and himself — the majority) held that "No suo motu power of remission is exercisable under Section 432(1)" and that it can be initiated only on an application under Section 432(2), the order being guided by the presiding officer's opinion (answer to Question 52.6). On Section 435(1), it held that in cases under clauses (a) to (c) the Central Government "will assume primacy" and "the process of 'Consultation' should in reality be held as the requirement of 'Concurrence'" (para 161; answer to Question 52.7). Lalit J. (for Sapre J. and himself) differed on other questions but also answered that "consultation" ought to be read as concurrence (paras 35–39). Section 477(1) BNSS now uses "concurrence" in its text.

Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448 (2024 INSC 806) — 21 October 2024. Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih JJ. noted that Section 473(1) BNSS is an identical provision to Section 432(1) CrPC (para 2). A convict cannot claim remission as of right but can require that his case be considered in accordance with law and policy (paras 12, 17(iii)); conditions must be reasonable (para 17(iv)); and before cancelling under Section 432(3) CrPC or Section 473(3) BNSS the Government must issue a show-cause notice, hear the convict and give brief reasons (paras 15, 17(v)). The condition to behave "decently" was struck down (para 18).

In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1588 (2025 INSC 239) — 18 February 2025. Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ., in a suo motu petition, described Section 473 BNSS as "substantially similar" to Section 432 CrPC. They directed that where a remission policy exists, all convicts must be considered when eligible without a specific application (para 21(a)); that States and Union Territories without a policy frame one within two months (para 21(b)); and that orders granting or refusing permanent remission contain brief reasons (paras 17, 21(d)). The presiding officer asked for an opinion under sub-section (2) must give it at the earliest (para 20).

Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., [2026] 6 S.C.R. 263 (2026 INSC 490) — 15 May 2026. B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ. dealt with a life convict of over twenty-two years whose release the State recommended and the Ministry of Home Affairs refused. The Court recorded its earlier order that, the case being investigated by the CBI, the State could decide under Section 473(1) BNSS "only after the concurrence of the Central Government" under Section 477(1) (para 2.6). It held that "the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the ground of heinousness of the crime" (para 7), quashed the MHA letter as "arbitrary, non-speaking" (para 9), and directed that the petitioner be treated as prematurely released (para 10).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps an application pending on 1 July 2024 under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". Section 531(2)(b) deems "sentences passed and orders" made under the CrPC and in force on that date to have been passed or made "under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita". On a reading of those provisions, a fresh remission application after 1 July 2024 for a CrPC-era sentence falls under Sections 473 to 477 BNSS, as Rohit Chaturvedi treated it; whether the rewritten commutation list in Section 474 applies to such a sentence is not stated in terms. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 432 CrPC? Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 432 CrPC. The appropriate Government may suspend the execution of a sentence or remit the whole or any part of it, without conditions or on conditions the convict accepts, and may cancel it if a condition is not fulfilled. The only change of substance is that the jail-petition proviso to Section 473(5) applies to any person above eighteen, not only a male person.

How has the power to commute a sentence changed? Section 474 BNSS allows commutation of death to imprisonment for life; life imprisonment to a term not less than seven years; imprisonment of seven years or more to a term not less than three years; imprisonment of less than seven years to fine; and rigorous to simple imprisonment. Section 433 CrPC allowed death to be commuted to any other punishment under the Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment to a term not exceeding fourteen years or fine.

Is the 14-year minimum for life convicts still in force? Yes. Section 475 BNSS repeats Section 433A CrPC: where life imprisonment is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments, or a death sentence is commuted to life under Section 474, the person shall not be released unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld Section 433A in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980).

When does a State need the Centre's agreement to remit a sentence? Under Section 477(1) BNSS the State cannot remit or commute a sentence without concurrence of the Central Government where the offence was investigated by an agency empowered to investigate offences under a Central Act other than the Sanhita, involved Central Government property, or was committed by a Central Government servant in the discharge of official duty. Section 435 CrPC said "consultation"; the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan (2015) had already read that as concurrence.

Must a convict apply for remission? Section 473(2) BNSS contemplates an application. In V. Sriharan (2015) the Supreme Court majority held that no suo motu remission power exists under Section 432(1) CrPC. In In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2025) the Court held that where the Government has a remission policy it must consider every eligible convict without a separate application.

Can remission be cancelled if the convict is accused of a new offence? Not automatically. Section 473(3) BNSS lets the Government cancel remission if a condition is not fulfilled. In Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024) the Supreme Court held that cancellation requires a show-cause notice, a hearing and brief reasons, and that registration of a cognizable offence is not by itself a ground to cancel.

Which provision governs remission of a sentence passed under the CrPC? Section 531(2)(b) BNSS deems sentences passed and orders made under the CrPC and in force on 1 July 2024 to have been passed or made under the corresponding BNSS provisions, and Section 531(2)(a) keeps pending applications under the CrPC. On a reading of that text, a fresh remission application after 1 July 2024 for a CrPC-era sentence is decided under Section 473 BNSS; the Supreme Court in Rohit Chaturvedi (2026) applied Sections 473 and 477 BNSS to a sentence passed in the CrPC era.

Related

• Mercy petition and commutation — CrPC vs BNSS guide
• Murder by life convict: IPC 303 vs BNS 104
• Punishments: IPC 53 vs BNS
• Suspension of sentence pending appeal: CrPC 389 vs BNSS 430
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 472 to 477 and 531.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 5.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 432 to 435, with the footnote to Section 433A.
• Judgments read in full text: Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981_1_1196_1261_EN.md); Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015_14_613_847_EN.md); Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024_10_1448_1461_EN.md); In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2025_2_1588_1607_EN.md); Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand (2026_6_263_282_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.