Delhi High Court Criticizes Sentence Review Board, Orders Release of Convict After 22 Years
In a scathing indictment of the Sentence Review Board (SRB), the Delhi High Court has declared that a convict's life and existence "remains totally invisible" to the government body. The court ordered the release of a rape convict who has served over 22 years in jail under a life sentence, faulting the SRB for repeatedly rejecting his plea for remission while ignoring his reformation and other mandatory criteria.
Court Questions SRB's Functioning and Meeting Procedures
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivering the judgment on Monday, expressed serious concerns about the SRB's operational methods. "It is also pertinent to observe that in all the SRB meetings, over 100 cases have been considered and decided. It is difficult to comprehend how such a number of cases can be considered in one meeting in a meaningful manner," the judge noted.
The court observed that the manner in which these meetings were conducted reflected "a total disregard not only to the factors relevant for consideration of remission, but also an indifference to the inmate who, for the authority, is nothing but one name in the multitude of cases."
"The man, the life and his existence as a human being remains totally invisible in this undemocratic functioning of government machinery," the court emphasized in its strongly worded order.
Constitutional Rights Violation and Arbitrary Decisions
The High Court pointed out that the petitioner had undergone 22 years, five months and 10 days of actual incarceration, with his total imprisonment exceeding 28 years, eight months and 28 days when including remission periods.
"His continued detention despite fulfilling all the criteria and reflecting his complete reformation and loss of propensity to commit crime ... directly impacts his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21," the court underlined, highlighting the constitutional dimension of the case.
The court found that the SRB's orders lacked proper reasoning and followed a "cyclostyled format," denying remission solely based on the gravity of the offence without considering the prescribed parameters. Such orders, the court declared, were violative of the principles of natural justice and were arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to established policy.
Case Details and Petitioner's Background
The court was hearing a plea filed by Rajab Ali, who had been convicted in a rape case. According to his petition, he had been in semi-open jail since 2017 and was recommended for open jail in 2019. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he was granted emergency temporary bail and was employed, showing no tendency to reoffend during this period.
The petitioner's case demonstrated significant rehabilitation, with the court noting his complete reformation and loss of propensity to commit further crimes. Despite meeting all necessary criteria for remission, the SRB had repeatedly rejected his applications without proper consideration of his individual circumstances.
Broader Implications for Prison Reform and Justice System
This landmark judgment raises important questions about prison reform and the functioning of review boards across the country. The court's criticism of the SRB's "undemocratic functioning" and its failure to consider individual cases meaningfully highlights systemic issues in the criminal justice system's approach to rehabilitation and remission.
The decision underscores the constitutional obligation to protect the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, even for convicted individuals who have demonstrated genuine reformation. By ordering the release of the convict after 22 years of incarceration, the court has sent a strong message about the importance of considering rehabilitation and individual circumstances in remission decisions.
This case may prompt reforms in how sentence review boards operate, potentially leading to more meaningful consideration of individual cases and greater emphasis on rehabilitation as a legitimate goal of the justice system.
