Delhi High Court Criticizes Sentence Review Board's Approach in Mattoo Case
The Delhi High Court, while examining the Sentence Review Board's decision to deny premature release to Santosh Kumar Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the 1996 rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo, observed that the board's decisions appear to be unduly influenced by public perception rather than objective legal criteria.
Justice Bhambhani's Observations on Public Perception
Justice Anup J Bhambhani remarked on Thursday that while the offense was undoubtedly heinous and caused permanent loss to the victim's family, the SRB seems to be proceeding based on public perception. "You are a hugely unpopular person... Your name doesn't sound good so I (SRB) am rejecting it," the judge noted, highlighting a troubling trend detected in multiple petitions before the court arising from the board's rejections of premature release applications.
The court emphasized the importance of reformation, pointing out that Singh has spent 30 years in custody. "There is something called reformation... 30 years in custody," Justice Bhambhani stated, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that considers rehabilitation alongside the gravity of the crime.
Background of the Case and Legal Proceedings
Santosh Kumar Singh, a former law student at Delhi University and son of a former IPS officer, was convicted for the January 1996 rape and murder of 25-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo. Initially acquitted by the trial court in December 1999, the Delhi High Court reversed this decision in October 2006, finding him guilty and awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction in October 2010 but commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
In July of last year, a different High Court bench set aside the SRB's decision to reject Singh's remission plea, noting signs of reform and criticizing the board for relying solely on the crime's severity and objections from Delhi Police and the CBI. The matter was sent back to the board for fresh consideration.
Recent Developments and Court Hearings
During Thursday's hearing, senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Singh, sought an early hearing on the remission plea, arguing that his client has already spent 31 years in custody. He contended that despite the High Court's comprehensive decision last year, the board rejected the case again on similar grounds in its November 27, 2025, decision, which Singh has now challenged.
Justice Bhambhani pointed out that there are "worse cases," including one convict who has spent 41 years in custody, as the board continues to reject applications based primarily on the heinousness of offenses, even when contrary recommendations exist.
Court's Emphasis on Reformation and Comparative Cases
The court responded to opposition from Hemant Mattoo, the victim's brother, who argued against advancing the hearing date due to the grave nature of the offense. Justice Bhambhani acknowledged the sentiments but stressed that Singh has been punished, stating, "I understand your sentiments. What he did was unacceptable and the system punished him. He got life. The offence was heinous. What do we do? We confine a man like this?"
Highlighting the principle of reformation, the court referenced other cases where convicts were released after serving substantial sentences, such as Sushil Kumar in the 1995 Tandoor murder case, who was released after 23 years, and the convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case. Singh's counsel cited these examples to support the plea for premature release based on time served and potential reform.
Future Proceedings and Objective Treatment
The High Court has listed Singh's petition along with similar cases for hearing on April 20, assuring that the matter will be treated objectively. "You will be treated objectively. You will be treated in accordance with what I distil," Justice Bhambhani told Singh's lawyer, indicating a careful review of the legal principles involved.
Last month, the court directed Singh to surrender after Hemant Mattoo opposed his premature release plea, indicating that remission would only be considered upon surrender, ending his parole. This ongoing legal battle underscores the tension between public outrage, judicial principles of reformation, and the discretionary powers of review boards in high-profile criminal cases.
