Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Life Convict 26 Years After Incarceration, Calls For 'Deeper Consideration' In SRB Decisions
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of a murder convict serving life imprisonment 26 years after his incarceration by quashing the decision of Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting his plea for premature release by calling it arbitrary, irrational and illogical.Referring to various scholars, Justice Anish Dayal underscored that SRB procedures require “better compliance and...
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of a murder convict serving life imprisonment 26 years after his incarceration by quashing the decision of Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting his plea for premature release by calling it arbitrary, irrational and illogical.
Referring to various scholars, Justice Anish Dayal underscored that SRB procedures require “better compliance and deeper consideration”, keeping into account the principles of reformation and rehabilitation, which form part of criminal jurisprudence.
The Court said that the SRB has to exercise its discretion based on relevant factors like whether the convict has lost his propensity for committing crime considering his overall conduct, possibility of reclaiming as a useful member of society and socio-economic condition of the convict's family.
The Court said that there was an apparent mismatch between the said elements and the reasons for rejection by the SRB in the case.
Noting that the order rejecting his premature release had only three aspects, i.e. the original crime, gravity and perversity of it, strong opposition by police, the Court said:
“This is further embellished by an open-ended 'etcetera', which in its own right is dispositive of non-application of mind. Rejecting premature release of a 26-year-old convict with an 'etcetera' is an unfortunate short-cut, perfectly opaque and a disservice to the rules and guidelines which the SRB is mandated to follow.”
The convict prayed for his premature release in the FIR registered under Sections 302, 186, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. He was convicted on September 22, 2009 and was awarded life imprisonment.
He challenged the minutes of meeting of the SRB rejecting his premature release and the order by which the Minutes were approved by the
Delhi Lieutenant Governor. He further sought framing of guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.
“Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future” – Justice V.R Krishna Iyer. These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration,” Justice Dayal said in the beginning of the judgment.
The Court observed that even if the brevity of articulation by the SRB is ignored as merely for administrative convenience, there was complete opacity in whether the cautionary elements of Rule 1257 (c) of Delhi Prison Rules were considered and used as reasons ultimately leading to a negative recommendation.
“It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has had continuously satisfactory jail conduct, has been awarded certificate of recognition on three occasions, has been on parole on five occasions, furlough on seven occasions, no record of having misused his liberty…,” the court said.
It added that the fundamental principle underlying the reformative theory emphasizes the rehabilitation of the offender and the commencement of a new chapter in his life.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the SRB does not meet with the frequency as mandated in the Rules (at least once in three months) and that its recommendations, along with the decision of the competent authority, is not communicated to the prisoner.
On this, Justice Dayal said that it is expected that the authorities shall ensure that there is no dilation or omission in this regard in order to not violate the rights of prisoners.
“In the context of prison administration, any deviation or omission that compromises these constitutional mandates risks violating the prisoners' rights and undermines the rule of law. Therefore, strict compliance with these principles is essential to uphold justice and the fundamental human rights of those incarcerated,” the Court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate (DHCLSC) and Ms. Anandita Rana,, Ms.Shrutika Pandey, Ms. Yamina Rizvi, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Ms. Spriha Bhandari, Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Arijit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Mr. Sushant Bali, Mr. Ishan Swarna Sharma, Advs
Title: VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1229