Delhi High Court Highlights Importance of Reformation in Premature Release: “Impeccable Jail Record and Reformation Cannot Be Ignored”; SRB’s Rejection Held Non-Speaking

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court emphasized the principles of reformation and rehabilitation while addressing the petitioner’s plea for premature release after over 26 years of incarceration. The court held that the rejection by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) was mechanical, lacked reasoning, and failed to comply with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018. It directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s case by the SRB with a focus on objective criteria.

Facts

1. Background of Conviction: The petitioner was convicted in 2009 under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Excise Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was upheld in 2012.
2. Incarceration Details: The petitioner has been in custody since 2001, amounting to 23 years and 5 months without remission and 26 years and 11 months with remission.
3. Jail Conduct: The petitioner maintained a sterling record, received multiple certificates for good conduct and services, and successfully participated in semi-open and open prison activities.
4. Previous SRB Rejections: The SRB rejected the petitioner’s requests for premature release six times on grounds including the gravity of the crime and opposition by the police.

Issues

1. Whether the SRB’s repeated rejection of the petitioner’s request for premature release adhered to the principles of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.
2. Whether the SRB’s recommendations were sufficiently reasoned and based on objective criteria.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Prolonged Custody: The petitioner has undergone over 26 years of incarceration with remission, exceeding the eligibility threshold under the Delhi Prisons Rules.
2. Good Conduct: The petitioner demonstrated consistent good conduct, as reflected in his jail record and participation in reformative programs.
3. Non-Speaking Orders: The SRB’s decisions were arbitrary, lacked proper reasoning, and disregarded established guidelines.
4. Rehabilitation Potential: The petitioner’s transition to open prison duties and employment outside the jail demonstrated his readiness to reintegrate into society.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Gravity of the Offense: The State argued that the nature and gravity of the crime justified the SRB’s repeated rejections.
2. Discretion of SRB: The SRB, as a recommendatory body, acted within its discretion, and its decisions aligned with societal and administrative considerations.

Analysis of the Law

1. Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018: The rules prioritize reformation and rehabilitation, mandating that decisions on premature release consider a convict’s jail conduct, reformative potential, and societal reintegration.
2. Role of the SRB: The SRB’s function is not to act mechanically but to engage in a holistic and objective assessment. It must provide detailed, reasoned recommendations.
3. Precedents:
   • Sushil Sharma v. State: Reiterated the need for SRB decisions to be in line with established guidelines.
   • Satish v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Held that incarceration duration and offense gravity cannot be the sole bases for denying release.
   • Joseph v. State of Kerala: Highlighted the need for considering reformation and behavioral transformation over the years.

Precedent Analysis

The High Court examined several rulings emphasizing the reformative purpose of punishment and the necessity for SRB recommendations to be speaking and reasoned. It cited cases where arbitrary rejections were set aside for not aligning with guidelines and reformative goals.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted that:

1. The petitioner’s impeccable jail record, successful completion of open prison duties, and certifications demonstrated significant reformation.
2. The SRB’s rejection failed to reflect the principles of reformation and societal reintegration enshrined in the Delhi Prisons Rules.
3. The petitioner had shown no indication of being a flight risk or possessing a propensity for future crime, as evidenced by his conduct during paroles and furloughs.

Conclusion

The court directed the SRB to reconsider the petitioner’s application, ensuring adherence to the Delhi Prisons Rules and principles of fairness and objectivity. It underscored that the welfare of both the prisoner and society should guide such decisions.

Implications

The judgment reiterates the judiciary’s role in ensuring that administrative bodies like the SRB act transparently and in line with legal and reformative principles. It underscores the importance of speaking orders and objective assessments in decisions concerning premature release.

Also Read – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Rules Local Preference Inapplicable Where Candidate’s Merit is Inferior, Dismisses Petition Challenging Non-Selection in Laboratory Assistant Position