Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a judgment delivered on July 1, 2025, held that the decisions of the Sentence Review Board (SRB), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), rejecting the applications for premature release of three life convicts suffered from "material procedural and legal infirmities." The court set aside the impugned SRB decisions concerning the three petitioners and remanded their cases for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The court directed the SRB to undertake a reasoned evaluation of the petitioners’ eligibility for premature release, following the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Prison Rules and applicable remission policies. It mandated the SRB to base its conclusions on individualized scrutiny and properly updated reports from prison authorities, police, and probation officers.

The court dismissed one petition challenging the rejection of a premature release application, holding that no grounds existed to interfere with the SRB’s decision in that particular case. Additionally, the court issued structured guidelines to the Department of Prisons and the SRB to ensure that future decisions are procedurally sound, substantively fair, and compliant with constitutional and statutory requirements, particularly those safeguarding the right to personal liberty.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry And Cruelty Case | Says Allegations Were Vague And Bereft Of Specifics | Misuse Of Section 498A Cannot Be A Tool For Harassment

The judgment addressed four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These petitions assailed the decisions of the Sentence Review Board, GNCTD, which had rejected the applications for premature release of convicts undergoing life imprisonment. The petitioners alleged that the SRB’s decisions were arbitrary, unreasoned, and failed to consider the reformative conduct of the convicts during their incarceration.

In the first case, W.P.(CRL.) 1431/2023, the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to a conviction under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the rape and murder of a law student. Though initially acquitted by the Trial Court, the petitioner was sentenced to death by the High Court, a sentence later commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court. As of March 24, 2025, he had completed 20 years, 7 months, and 15 days in custody, including an actual sentence of 17 years, 2 months, and 3 days. He had been granted 18 paroles and 9 furloughs and was classified for placement in Open Jail. The petitioner was employed as a legal consultant. The SRB considered his case in meetings held on August 30, 2024, and September 18, 2024, and rejected it citing the "gravity, cruelty and perversity of the crime," opposition by Police/CBI, and a concern that his release would send a "wrong signal to the public." The SRB additionally stated that "the conduct of the convict in jail is not necessarily a barometer of his conduct outside."

The second petition, W.P.(CRL.) 3785/2023, involved a petitioner undergoing life imprisonment in FIR No. 542/2003 under Sections 302 and 364 IPC for murder committed during abduction. As of March 21, 2025, he had served 29 years and 11 months in total custody, including an actual sentence of 22 years, 10 months, and 1 day. He had availed 7 paroles and 22 furloughs, but had jumped parole in 2013 and was re-arrested in another case on June 15, 2014. He was currently classified for Closed Prison. The SRB rejected his application in a meeting on December 10, 2024, citing the "gravity/perversity of the crime," multiple jail punishments, history of parole-jumping, registration of new cases, and a "non-reformative attitude."

In W.P.(CRL.) 323/2025, the petitioner was serving life imprisonment in FIR No. 859/2004 under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC read with Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act for murdering a 22-year-old man after intoxicating him. As of March 11, 2025, he had served 20 years, 2 months, and 20 days, with an actual sentence of 18 years, 4 months, and 17 days. He had availed 2 interim bails and 6 paroles and had twice jumped parole. The petitioner had also committed various acts of misconduct in prison, including a hunger strike, attempted suicide, physical altercation with another inmate, tampering with CCTV cameras, possession of prohibited articles, and misbehavior with jail staff. The SRB rejected his release in its meeting held on December 10, 2024, citing the gravity of the offence, objections from police, possibility of re-offending, and delay in surrender after interim bail.

The final petition, W.P.(CRL.) 668/2025, involved a convict sentenced to life imprisonment in FIR No. 702/1999 under Sections 302, 376, 436, and 201 IPC for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old minor girl. As of April 8, 2025, he had served 33 years in total custody, including an actual sentence of 25 years, 5 months, and 12 days. He had availed 3 paroles and 8 furloughs and was placed in Semi-Open Jail. His application was rejected by the SRB in meetings dated August 30, 2024, and September 18, 2024. The Board cited the "gravity and perversity of the crime," strong opposition by the police, age of the convict, and possibility of future offences. It also held that jail conduct did not necessarily indicate good conduct outside prison.

The petitioners submitted that the impugned SRB decisions were mechanical, unreasoned, and failed to consider individual conduct, institutional classifications, and reformative progress. They contended that the Board disregarded policy guidelines and principles of natural justice and instead relied excessively on the nature of the original offence.

The court observed that the power to grant premature release was an executive function under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, and also recognized under Sections 432 to 433A of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 473 to 475 of the BNSS). It stated that such remission is “primarily within the domain of executive policy and sovereign discretion.”

The court stated that under the 2004 Policy and Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the decision regarding premature release must be "anchored in a comprehensive and fair assessment of the prisoner’s overall conduct, reformative milestones, institutional evaluations… and the reports prepared by the Jail Superintendent, Police and Probation Officer."

The court noted that when convicts allege violations of remission policy, "the inquiry by the Court is ordinarily not into the merits of the decision per se, but whether the decision-making process suffered from arbitrariness, non-application of mind or procedural unfairness." It clarified that it does not have the authority to grant remission directly, but it may direct the government to reconsider cases if arbitrariness is evident.

The court recorded: "Requirement that reason must be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review." It further stated: "People should have confidence in judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and minimize chances of arbitrariness."

The court further observed: "The power to grant premature release must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. It affects the convict’s liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." Therefore, it held that principles of natural justice are implied in the remission process under Section 432 of CrPC and Section 473 of BNSS.

The court recorded: "State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction, that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date."

The court stated: "Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime cannot be the sole basis for refusing premature release." It held that assessments regarding likelihood of future crime must be "based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses."

The court observed that the petitioners' placement in semi-open or open prisons represents an institutional acknowledgment of their reformation and "constitutes a strong institutional acknowledgment of their reformation and carries significant evidentiary value in favour of premature release."

The court stated that the SRB's decisions had a "profound impact on the future of individuals serving life sentences" and that it must "act fairly, reasonably, and in strict accordance with both the applicable policy and transparent reasoning." It stated: "An executive decision that affects liberty of a person cannot be insulated from judicial scrutiny merely by invoking its policy character."

The court recorded that in the impugned decisions, "the SRB appears to have applied a uniform template of rejection without individualised scrutiny, disregarding relevant reformative indicators, and placing excessive reliance on the gravity of the original offence or perfunctory police opposition."

The court held that the decisions in W.P. (Crl.) 1431/2023, W.P. (Crl.) 3785/2023, and W.P. (Crl.) 668/2025 suffered from procedural and legal infirmities and were unsustainable in law. It set aside the SRB’s decisions in these cases and remanded them for fresh consideration. The court directed that all documents required under Rule 1256 of the Delhi Prison Rules be prepared afresh.

The court stated: "Superintendent of the prison housing the convict shall prepare a revised note under Rule 1256(ii) within four weeks… This note must include a clear recommendation and reflect the Superintendent’s considered opinion regarding the prisoner’s conduct, mental and physical health, participation in reformative activities, and overall suitability for premature release."

The court directed that the police report under Rule 1256(iv) must be updated and submitted within four weeks. It stated: "The report must not be a routine opposition but must assess the convict’s conduct, antecedents, present risk profile, and community impact in a balanced and evidence-based manner."

It further ordered: "The District Probation Officer under Rule 1256(v) shall submit a fresh report within four weeks… addressing the convict’s family and social background, reintegration prospects, community acceptance, and any demonstrated reformation of character or attitude."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension Of DRT Judge | Says Misconduct Allegations Grave | No Right To Continue In Judicial Office Pending Inquiry

The court directed the Inspector General of Prisons to submit a consolidated recommendation within eight weeks, stating: "The I.G. (Prisons) shall ensure that this recommendation reflects due appreciation of all material reports and does not merely reproduce their contents in summary form."

The SRB was directed to reconvene and consider the cases in a meeting to be held within three months and to render a decision within four months. The court directed: *"To ensure adequate deliberation and proper application of mind in each case, the SRB shall take up only as many cases as can be reasonably decided in one meeting…"

The court also directed use of the structured checklist adopted in Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. for evaluating premature release applications.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Mr. Amod Singh and Mr. Vignesh, Advocates; Mr. Ajay Verma and Ms. Bhoomika Uppal, Advocates; Mr. Jaiveer and Mr. Irshad, Advocates; Mr. Samar Bansal, Ms. Yamina Rizvi, Ms. Shrutika Pandey, Ms. Ragini Nagpal, Mr. Vedant Kapur and Mr. Kaustabh Chaturvedi, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates; Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates

Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State (Govt. of the NCT) of Delhi & Ors. and connected matters

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5138

Case Number: W.P.(CRL.) 1431/2023, W.P.(CRL.) 3785/2023, W.P.(CRL.) 323/2025, W.P.(CRL.) 668/2025

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula