Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, citing Franz Kafka’s opening line from The Metamorphosis, set aside the Sentence Review Board’s minutes rejecting remission and the Lieutenant Governor’s approval, and directed the prisoner’s release from custody forthwith. The petitioner, a former President’s Bodyguard serving life imprisonment, had been convicted for the 2003 abduction, gang rape and robbery of a young woman in Delhi. The court found that the SRB and other authorities acted arbitrarily and contrary to the record by repeatedly refusing premature release despite more than two decades of incarceration, clean parole history and reform assessments supporting reintegration.

Also Read: IBC | Single Insolvency Plea Maintainable Against Intricately Linked Corporate Entities In Real Estate Projects: Supreme Court

During incarceration, the petitioner earned multiple commendations, certificates for good conduct, and participated in vocational, spiritual, and reformative activities. He availed parole and furlough on several occasions without any adverse report. Since 2016, his case for premature release was considered by the Sentence Review Board on twelve occasions and rejected each time, primarily citing the gravity and heinous nature of the offence.

Earlier, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court challenging rejection of remission on the ground that his case was considered under an incorrect policy. Pursuant to directions, the Sentence Review Board reconsidered the case under the 2004 policy but again rejected premature release. The present petition challenged the said rejection and the approval accorded by the Lieutenant Governor, contending arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of constitutional guarantees.

The Court examined the penological framework governing remission and noted “the evolution of criminal jurisprudence from a purely retributive model to a reformative and rehabilitative approach”. It observed that “punishment is no longer viewed merely as social vengeance but as a corrective process aimed at reintegration of the offender into society”.

The Court observed: “Much like Gregor Samsa, the Petitioner, has been trapped by the State in the frozen image of his past criminality - viewed perpetually as the gigantic insect of 2003, rather than the reformed individual of 2025.”

Referring to the constitutional mandate, the Court stated “a prisoner does not cease to be a person under Article 21 merely because he is behind bars, and the right to dignity survives incarceration”. The judgment recorded that remission functions as “an institutional recognition of reformation” and “a bridge between incarceration and reintegration”.

On the applicable policy, the Court observed “the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction governs consideration, and any more liberal policy in force on the date of consideration must enure to the benefit of the convict”. It recorded that the 2004 policy prescribed that even in heinous cases, “the total period of incarceration including remission should ordinarily not exceed 25 years”.

Examining the petitioner’s case, the Court observed “The SRB, by mechanically reiterating the heinousness of the original offence, as a constant and permanent bar to release, has refused to acknowledge that the Petitioner has successfully undergone a reverse metamorphosis: shedding the propensity for crime and earning his place back in humanity, through 25 years of exemplary conduct and discipline.”

The Court added: “While Kafka‟s protagonist was ultimately destroyed by the alienation of those who could not see past his shell, the Constitution of India, anchored in the Reformative Theory, forbids the State from condemning a prisoner to such eternal alienation, when the objective of correction has been achieved.”

The Court added: “In its 12 rejections based on the same static ground i.e. the gravity of the original offence committed in 2003, the SRB has demonstrated a bureaucratic haze that is unlikely to be cured by a 13th Application. As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, the gravity of an offence is a static, historical fact - it will never change, no matter how many decades pass. To allow the heinousness of a past act to act as a permanent bar to remission is to transform a life sentence into a retributive death by incarceration, rendering the State‟s reformative machinery entirely redundant.”

Also Read: Abscondence Of Co-Accused Can Be A Relevant Factor In NDPS Bail Decisions: Delhi High Court

The Court directed “the impugned Minutes of the Sentence Review Board dated 23.02.2024 and their subsequent approval by the Lieutenant Governor are arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to the record. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Petitioner/Harpreet Singh, be released from custody forthwith”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Advocate; Mr. Sirhaan Seth, Advocate; Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Advocate; Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate; Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocate; SI Manoj Kumar, PS Chanakyapuri

Case Title: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)                                                 Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:754
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 463 of 2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna