Mr. Mohit Mathur, … v. STATE

Judgment

1. The present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, raise fundamental questions relating to functioning of the Sentence Review Board, GNCTD2 the executive body tasked with deciding whether convicts serving life sentences merit premature release. The Petitioners, all life convicts, assail the rejection of their claims for premature release by the SRB, contending that the impugned decisions as well as its approval by the Lt. Governor, Delhi are unreasoned, mechanical, and insensitive to their Signature Not Verified 1 “BNSS” 2 “SRB”/ “Board” Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 2 of 82 post-conviction conduct. Consequently, the Petitioners seek directions to the prison authorities for their premature release.

2. Since each petition raises a common challenge to the legality and validity of the SRB’s decision, particularly whether it meets the constitutional standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Wherever factual distinctions arise, they are addressed separately. Factual Background (In Brief)

3. In order to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of each Petitioner’s unique circumstances and the specific reasons for the SRB’s rejection of their premature release, the following table provides a consolidated snapshot of each case: Table 1: Factual background of each Petition Writ Petition W.P.(Crl)14 Santosh Kumar Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi 30.08.2024 & 18.09.2024 FIR No. 50/1996 u/s 302 later re- entered as RC(1)(S)/96 - Impugned minutes of SRB meeting Details of FIR and Offences involved W.P.(Crl) Rajeev @ Diwanji v. State (Govt. NCT) of Delhi W.P.(Crl) Chander Prakash v. State of NCT of Delhi

10.12.2024

10.12.2024 FIR No. 542/2003, PS Paharganj, Delhi u/s 302, 364 IPC FIR 859/2004, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi u/s 302/201/34 of IPC, W.P.(Crl) Harish Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

30.08.2024 & 18.09.2024 FIR No. 702/1999, PS Mehrauli u/s 302/376/436/ 201of IPC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 3 of 82 SIU.V/SIC.I I/CBI/SPE Criminal act Rape and murder of a girl. Abduction and murder; shot in public 25/27 of Arms Act Intoxicated murdered a person; wrapped the body in plastic wrap and dumped 16.04.2008 Rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl; burning the room with the body as an attempt to erase the evidence 26.04.2003

25.08.2012 Date of conviction Conviction Sentence served. (with and without remission) As per Nominal Roll Current jail classification

03.12.1999 (acquittal) 17.10.2006 (reversal and conviction) Sections: 302/376 IPC Total: 29 Years, 11 Months (as 21.03.2025) Actual: 22 Years, 02 Months & 3 Days (as on 21.03.2025) Open Jail; working as a consultant with a real estate company Sections: 302/364 IPC Total: 20 Years, 7 Months & 15 Days (as on 24.03.2025) Actual: 17 Years, 10 Months & 01 Day (as on 24.03.2025) Closed Prison Sections: 302/301/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act Total: 20 Years, 2 months & 20 days (as on 11.03.2025) Actual: 18 Years, 4 Months & 17 days (as 11.03.2025) Closed Prison Sections: 302/376/436/ 201 IPC Total: 33 Years (as on 08.04.2025) Actual: 25 years, 05 Months & 12 Days (as on 08.04.2025) Semi-Open jail (was order transferred to Open; could furnish surety) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 4 of 82 Parole & furlough history Imparting of curriculum conduct activities/skil l/education/ vocational training Learnt/work performed in Jail (As per Jail Superintende nt’s Report) Applicable Policy Grounds for rejection of Pre-release application • 7 Paroles, • 1 Parole jumped 9 Furloughs - • 18 Paroles • (2 covid) 22 Furloughs Yoga, vipasayana & Lodgment as Jail legal cell sahayak • 7 Paroles, • 3 Paroles jumped BPP, Computer course & graduation (BA) • 3 Paroles • 8 Furloughs 5 special remissions Lunger Sahayak, Electrician, Carpentry, Plumber & Sahayak at Soj

16.07.2004 – Lt. Governor Order Circumstanc es/perversity of the crime; Police and Addl. Commr. of Delhi Police opposed; Social Welfare Dept. recommende d but Special Secretary Director, Social Welfare Department,

16.07.2004 – Lt. Governor Order Gravity of the crime; Jumped parole; Re-arrest in another case; Jail Punishments; Propensity to commit crime

16.07.2004 – Lt. Governor Order Gravity/perve rsity of the crime; Objection of police; Age; Possibility of committing crime again; ‘etc.’

16.07.2004 – Lt. Governor Order Gravity/perv ersity of the crime; Jail punishments (16 approx); Jumped parole twice, then booked in other cases; criminal history; pending cases; possibility of committing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 5 of 82 Delhi opposed None Misconduct/ Offences during incarceration Signature Not Verified a. Jumped 1 month parole and re-arrested in another case u/s 224 IPC b. Quarrel/foul/ abusive language c. Trying to break complaint Recovery of loose tobacco pouch from his pocket (punishment already undergone – cannot come in the way as per order of Hon’ble DHC) None a. hunger strike b. attempt to suicide c. physical assault with inmate d. smoking; changing the directions CCTV camera e. refused to go outside OPD f. recovery of surgical blades g. used unparliament ary language h. refused frisking; attacked frisking i. recovery of prohibited article (twice) j. abusive language; misbehaved with jail staff (thrice) k. disobeyed jail rules l. recovery of pen drive Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 6 of 82 m. late surrender Impugned Minutes of Meeting of the SRB

4. It must be noted that during the pendency of present proceedings, the cases of the Petitioners’ in W.P.(CRL.) 1431/2023, W.P.(CRL.) 3785/2023, and W.P.(CRL.) 323/2025, were again considered by the SRB in its subsequent meetings, but were ultimately rejected on those occasions as well.

5. In particular, the Petitioner in W.P.(CRL.) 1431/2023 had originally impugned the Minutes of the SRB dated 21st October, 2021. Later, on 21st December, 2023, the petition was amended to challenge the later rejection dated 30th June, 2023. The record further reflects that his case was yet again considered by the SRB in its meetings held on 30th August, 2024 and 18th September, 2024, but was not recommended for release.

6. Similarly, the Petitioner in W.P.(CRL.) 3785/2023 initially impugned the minutes dated 30th June, 2023, however, his case too was placed before the SRB for reconsideration in the meetings held on 30th August, 2024 and 18th September, 2024. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court was informed that the Petitioner’s case was also due for review in the SRB meeting scheduled for 10th December, 2024. In light of this development, the Court deemed it appropriate to defer further hearing to await the outcome of the said meeting, however his request was denied yet again.

7. As for the Petitioner in W.P.(CRL.) 323/2025, the SRB was directed to consider his case pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) Nos. 1985–1987/2024. In compliance with these directions, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 7 of 82 the SRB considered the Petitioner’s application for premature release in its meeting held on 10th December, 2024.

8. Notwithstanding the absence of a specific challenge to the most recent decisions in some of the petitions, the grounds raised herein apply with equal force to those decisions as well. Accordingly, this Court undertakes judicial scrutiny of all the recent decisions of the SRB in respect of all the petitions which are extracted hereinbelow: Impugned Minutes in W.P.(CRL.) 1431/2023 “Minutes of SRB Meetings held on 30th Aug, 2024 & 18th Sep, 2024 REJECTED CASE OF PREVIOUS SRB MEETING (INVESTIGATED BY C.B.I) ITEM No. 172

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SH, J. P. SINGH - AGE-52 YRS Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. J. P. Singh is undergoing ife imprisonment in case FIR NO. 50/19%, U/S 302/376 IPC, P.S. Vasant Kunj, Delhi (case transferred to CBI and re-registered RC 1(S)/96- 1U/V/SIC-I1/CBI/ SPE/New Delhi) for committing rape and murder of a Law student. Accused Santosh Kumar Singh was acquitted by Ld. Trial Court. But Death sentence was awarded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was commuted to life imprisonment by the Hon'ble Apex India. Court Eligibility for consideration of the case: Only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years Including remission. The convict has undergone: Imprisonment of 21 years, 02 months & 12 days in actual and 28 years, 06 months & 27 days with remission. He has availed Parole 18 times and Furlough 19 times. This case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi I.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction. Conclusion: The Board considered the reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. The convict had committed a brutal crime Le, rape and murder of a law student. Considering the gravity, cruelty, perversity and the manner of the crime so committed, strong objection by the Police/C.B.I etc., the Board felt Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 8 of 82 that it may not be in the interest of the society at large to release such a convict and if the convict is released it will send a wrong signal to the public & society. The conduct of the convict in the jail is not necessarily a barometer of what he may do if outside the Prison. Thus, the Board convict unanimously premature Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. J. P. Singh at this stage.” REJECTS release Impugned Minutes in W.P.(CRL.) 3785/2023 (36)- Item No. 36; The case of Rajeev @ Diwanji S/o Sh. Tulsi Dass-(Age-43 Yrs.) (i) Background: This case has been put in compliance to the order dated 30.09.2024 in Writ Petition (Criminal) 3785/2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rajeev @ Diwanji Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), wherein it was submitted by the learned ASC (Crl.) for the State that the Petitioner’s case shall be considered in the next meeting of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Sentence Reviewing Board. Re-notify on 28.01.2025. Minutes of SRB Meeting held on 10th Dec, 2024 (ii) Eligibility conditions; 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e, without remission. This case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction. (iii) Sentence details: Rajeev @ Diwanji S/o Sh. Tulsi Dass is undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 542/2003, U/S 302/364 IPC, P.S. Pahar Ganj, Delhi for murder of a person during his abduction. As on 25.11.2024, the convict has undergone imprisonment of 17 years, 09 months & 25 days in actual and 20 years, 07 months & 09 days with remission. He has availed Parole 07 times and Furlough 10 times. He jumped parole in 2013 and was re-arrested in another case on 15.06.2014. (iv) Recommendations: The Board considered the reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. The convict had committed murder of a person during his abduction in public view. Considering the facts of jump parole and re-arrest in another case, unsatisfactory jail Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 9 of 82 conduct with multiple jail punishments, shown non-reformative attitude etc, The Board after due deliberations unanimously recommended REJECTION of premature release of convict Rajeev Diwanji S/o Sh. Tulsi Dass at this stage.” Impugned Minutes in W.P.(CRL.) 323/2025 (05) Item No.-5; The case of Chander Prakash S/o Sh. Durian Singh = (Age-41 Yrs.) (i) Background: This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated 18.11.2024 in SLP (Crl) Nos. 1985-1987/2024 passed by the Hon'ble. Supreme Court of India connected with the main matter in WP (s) (Crl.) No (s). 397/2023 titled Chetan & others Vs. State the case of the petitioner/convict is titled as Subhash Chander & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), wherein it was directed "....We direct the respondent to consider the cases of only those petitioners who have surrendered in terms of this Court's order dated 1st October, 2024 and take appropriate decision within a period of Six weeks from today. The decision shall be placed before the Court on 3rd January, 2025 ......” (ii) Eligibility conditions: 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e. without remission. This case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction. (iii) Sentence details: Chander Prakash S/o Sh. Durjan Singh imprisonment in case FIR No. 859/2004, U/S 302/201/34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Sangam Vihar, Delhi for murder of a 22 years old man after intoxicating him. As on 25.11.2024, the convict has undergone imprisonment of 18 years. 02 months & 10 days in actual and years, 10 months and 28 days with remission. He has availed Interim bail 02 times and Parole 06 times. He jumped parole twice (i) w.e.f. 03.05.2012 and re-arrested in another case on 23.06.2012 & (ii) w.e.f. 14.08.2016 and re-arrested in another case on 14.10.2016. (iv) Recommendations: The Board considered the reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. The convict had committed murder of a 22 years old man after intoxicating him and dumped the dead body in the bushes near Hodal, Haryana. Considering the un-satisfactory conduct is undergoing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 10 of 82 in view of multiple jail punishments (approx 16), history of jumped parole twice and booked in other cases during such period, criminal history/other pending criminal cases, gravity and perversity of the crime, non reformative attitude, possibility of committing crime again etc., The Board held that it may not be in the interest of the society at large to release such a convict. Further, it has also been observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.10.2024 vacated the interim relief i.e. exemption from surrender granted to the convict & thereby he had to surrender on 01.10.2024, whereas the convict surrendered on 07.10.2024. The Board after due deliberations unanimously recommended REJECTION of premature release of convict Chander Prakash S/o Sh. Durjan Singh at this stage.” Impugned Minutes in W.P.(CRL.) 668/2025 “Minutes of Meeting held on 30th Aug, 2024 & 18th Sep, 2024 ITEM NO. 138 HARISH S/Q.SH. RAJA.RAM - AGE-43 YRS. Harish S/o Sh. Raja Ram Is undergoing life Imprisonment in case FIR No. 702/1999, U/S 302/376/201 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli, Delhi for committing rape & murder of a 12 years minor girl. Eligibility for consideration of the case: Only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remission. The convict has undergone: Imprisonment of 24 years, 02 months & 04 days in actual and 31 years, 10 months & 07 days with remission. He has availed Parole 03 times and Furlough 08 times. This case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction. Conclusion: The Board considered the reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case under which the brutal crime was committed. The convict had committed rape and murder of a 12 years minor girl. Considering the gravity and perversity of the crime, strong objection by police, age of the convict and possibility of committing crime again etc., the Board is of the view that the conduct of the convict in the jail is not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 11 of 82 necessarily a barometer of what he may do if outside the Prison. In the given backdrop of the entire facts placed, the Board after discussion at length unanimously REJECTS premature release of convict Harish S/o Sh. Raja Ram at this stage.” Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

9. The Petitioners assail the decisions of the SRB primarily on the ground that the rejections are arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and contrary to the settled principles governing premature release. They contend that the SRB has deviated from its statutory and policy-bound duty to undertake a holistic, case-by-case evaluation; the impugned orders fail to demonstrate any deliberative process, nor do they show due regard to the relevant materials that ought to have informed the decision. The legal submissions are summarised thus:

9.1. Lack of Reasoned Decision-Making and Non-Application of Mind: The impugned decisions suffer from a complete absence of case-specific reasoning. The record reveals that the SRB, in a single sitting, proceeded to consider an overwhelmingly large number of applications – an approach that renders any meaningful, individualised evaluation of each case highly implausible. Consequently, the orders issued are formulaic and non- speaking, devoid of any rational nexus with the convict’s personal conduct, reformative progress, or relevant documentary material. Such mechanical rejection, without due application of mind, undermines the statutory purpose of the SRB and fails to meet the constitutional requirement of procedural fairness.

9.2. Disproportionate Emphasis on the Nature of the Crime and Opposition by the Police: While the nature and gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration, the SRB has treated it as the sole determinative Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 12 of 82 factor. The nature of the offence, though serious, cannot be used as a perpetual bar to release, especially when the convict has undergone substantial incarceration and shown demonstrable signs of rehabilitation. The singular focus on the brutality or perversity of the crime, to the exclusion of all other considerations, violates the object of the policy since all cases for remission invariably involve heinous crimes. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgement in Satish @ Sabbe v. State of UP.3 Moreover, the SRB has erroneously relied upon the opposition by the Police to deny the Petitioners premature release, while ignoring Rule 1257(c) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which expressly stipulates that “Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely on the ground that the police have not recommended his release.”

9.3. Failure to Consider Reformative Conduct and Length of Incarceration: The SRB has failed to take into account the Petitioners’ conduct during incarceration, including their participation in educational, vocational, and spiritual programmes, absence of major infractions, and positive assessments by jail authorities. The Petitioners have served lengthy sentences, in some cases exceeding two decades, yet no meaningful reference to their conduct or reformation potential is found in the impugned decisions.

9.4. Disregard for Binding Policy Framework and Eligibility Criteria: The Petitioners satisfy the eligibility thresholds prescribed under the Government of NCT of Delhi’s policy dated 16th July, 2004, which was the prevailing policy at the time of their conviction. The SRB is bound to act within the contours of this policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, both Signature Not Verified 3 (2021) 14 SCC 580 Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 13 of 82 of which mandate a balanced, multi-factor-based assessment. However, the impugned rejections do not reflect any such evaluative exercise.

9.5. Omission Material Records Reports: Despite the availability of favourable recommendations by the Jail Superintendent or Social Welfare Department in several cases, the impugned minutes are silent on their consideration. This omission is not merely a procedural lapse, but strikes at the core of the decision-making process, rendering the outcomes procedurally untenable.

9.6. Reformative Purpose of Incarceration Under the Policy Framework: The underlying philosophy of the applicable remission and premature release policies is not retributive justice, but reformative and rehabilitative correction. The test is whether the convict has lost the propensity to commit crime and is capable of reintegration into civil society. It is urged that the Petitioners’ conduct, including their reformative efforts and absence of recent infractions, demonstrates this transformation. The SRB, however, has failed to consider this while rejecting their applications, thereby frustrating the very objective of the policy.

9.7. Discriminatory Application of Policy and Violation of Article 14: The SRB has adopted arbitrary yardsticks in adjudicating the Petitioners’ applications. Despite being similarly situated to other convicts who have been granted premature release under the same policy framework, the Petitioners have been denied relief without any justifiable distinction. This selective treatment, it is urged, violates the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment in Rajkumar v. State of U.P.4 Signature Not Verified 4 (2024) 9 SCC 598 Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 14 of 82

9.8. Mechanical Rejection in Successive Reviews and Procedural Unfairness: The Petitioners also highlight the practice of routinely forwarding their names for consideration before the SRB, only to have their applications rejected year after year, on identical grounds. This displays lack of genuine re-evaluation or case-specific appraisal of each convict’s reformative progress. Moreover, the Petitioners were not even intimated about the fact that their cases had been placed before the SRB or that they had been rejected. This absence of communication deprives them of the opportunity to respond or challenge any adverse material that may have been considered. Such procedural opacity, is contrary to the prevailing policy as well as the principles of natural justice and undermines the fairness of the entire process.

10. Individualised Submissions on Reform and Conduct In addition to the broader legal challenges raised against the impugned SRB decisions, certain Petitioners have also placed on record facts specific to their individual circumstances, highlighting their reformative progress and conduct during incarceration. These submissions are summarised below:

10.1. W.P. (Crl.) 1431/2023 – Santosh Kumar Singh Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, submits that the Petitioner has consistently maintained good conduct during incarceration and has not been awarded any jail punishment throughout his sentence. Owing to his meritorious conduct and reformative progress, the Petitioner has been classified as eligible for Open Prison, and is currently permitted to exit the prison complex daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM for gainful employment as a legal consultant with a real estate firm. It is urged that such placement reflects a high degree of institutional confidence and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 15 of 82 reinforces the Petitioner’s rehabilitation. However, despite these factors, his applications for premature release have been routinely rejected on the sole ground of the gravity of the crime. Further it has been submitted that the SRB had in fact recommended the Petitioner’s premature release in a previous meeting held on 6th September, 2017. However, the Lt. Governor of Delhi directed the SRB to revisit the matter in a subsequent meeting, upon which the SRB summarily rejected the Petitioner’s application without assigning any additional reasoning or acknowledging the earlier favourable recommendation. What exacerbates the issue, is that this initial recommendation in the Petitioner’s favour was never communicated to him at the time and only came to light later. This demonstrates that the entire process is vitiated by arbitrariness, absence of transparency, and non- application of mind.

10.2. W.P. (Crl.) 668/2025 – Harish Kumar Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate, points out that the Petitioner is currently placed in a Semi-Open Prison and has actively contributed to various prison welfare programmes. In recognition of his trustworthy conduct, the Petitioner was granted permission for transfer to an Open Prison. However, due to financial hardship, he was unable to furnish the requisite surety to avail the benefit. It has been argued that even though this demonstrates Petitioner’s rehabilitation, the same has been disregarded and his application has been rejected repeatedly and mechanically, on grounds that have not been treated as disqualifying in cases of other similarly placed convicts.

10.3. W.P. (Crl.) 323/2025 – Chander Prakash Mr. Jaiveer, Advocate, highlights that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Petitioner voluntarily served as a sevadar in the Central Jail Hospital, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 16 of 82 assisting medical staff in tending to fellow inmates. He was awarded a “Corona Warrior Certificate” in recognition of his selfless service. The Petitioner has also completed various educational milestones during incarceration, including matriculation, higher secondary, and is presently pursuing a law degree. Counsel submits that although the Petitioner has past instances of parole violations and certain jail punishments, these incidents occurred several years ago and should not be allowed to permanently disqualify him for remission. It is argued that the SRB has ignored his subsequent conduct and constructive contributions, thereby failing to make an individualised and progressive assessment.

10.4 W.P. (Crl.) 3785/2023 – Rajeev @ Diwanji Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for the Petitioner, contends that while the Petitioner had previously violated parole conditions and incurred a few jail punishments, these incidents have been unduly magnified in the SRB’s consideration. He urges that the Petitioner has since improved his conduct and participated in prison activities, but the SRB has rejected his application year after year on the same grounds, without acknowledging any evolution in his behaviour. Such blanket rejection, it is submitted, fails to function in accordance with the policy mandate of having a case-specific evaluation.

10.5 Challenge to Misapplication of Remission Policy (W.P. (Crl.) 3785/2023) In W.P. (Crl.) 3785/2023, the Petitioner raises a specific legal challenge to the policy framework applied by the SRB while considering his application for premature release. It is contended that the Petitioner, having been convicted on 25th August, 2012, ought to have been considered under the remission policy dated 16th July, 2004 issued by the GNCTD, which was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 17 of 82 in force at the time of his conviction. However, the SRB erroneously evaluated his case under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, resulting in an adverse outcome. To support this contention, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish5 and Joseph v. State of Kerala.6

11. SRB’s Mandate and Scope of Judicial Review: Tying the above submissions together, counsel for the Petitioners assert that while the SRB is empowered to exercise discretion in recommending premature release, such discretion is not unbounded and must be exercised in accordance with the remission policies formulated by the State, and constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. Decisions that indicate mechanical reasoning, disregard material records, or adopt inconsistent yardsticks fall foul of this mandate. Consequently, the impugned SRB decisions are liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on Sushil Sharma v. State7, which affirms the settled principle that administrative or executive actions are amenable to judicial review when they breach policy, law, or fundamental rights.

12. Prayer for Premature Release: In addition to seeking the quashing of the impugned SRB decisions, counsel for the Petitioners submit that this Court is fully empowered to grant consequential relief by issuing directions for the Petitioners’ premature release. They submit that where the SRB’s decision is found to be arbitrary, mechanical, or ultra vires the applicable remission policy, this Court may not only set aside such decisions, but also proceed to direct the release of the convicts in appropriate cases. They contend that remanding the matter to the SRB would serve no meaningful 5 (2010) 4 SCC 216 6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211 7 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13277 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 18 of 82 purpose, as it is likely to result in a reiteration of earlier rejections, devoid of real consideration or relief. Placing reliance on precedents such as Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State (NCT of Delhi)8 and Wahid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.9, Sushil Sharma v. State10, it is contended that the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, has previously directed the release of convicts whose applications were unjustly rejected. Hence, this Court too may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant final relief. Submissions on behalf of the State

13. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari and Mr. Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsels (Crl.), appearing for the State, oppose the maintainability as well as the merits of the present batch of writ petitions. Their opposition is two- fold: first, a general challenge to the legal propositions advanced by the Petitioners; and second, a factual response to the individual claims raised in each case. The State’s submissions are summarised as follows:

13.1 No Inherent Right to Premature Release: The Petitioners, all convicts undergoing life imprisonment, have no vested or indefeasible right to seek premature release merely upon completion of the prescribed period under the applicable remission policies. A sentence of life imprisonment, as settled by judicial precedent, signifies incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life unless duly remitted by the competent authority. At best, the remission policies confer a limited legal right to be considered for premature release and not a right to be released 8 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805 9 2022 DHC 3690 10 Supra note 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 19 of 82 unconditionally. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Union of India v. V. Sriharan,11 and State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh.12

13.2 Role of the SRB and Boundaries of Judicial Review: The adjudication of applications for premature release is a policy-based determination which falls squarely within the executive domain. Consequently, the Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, may assess whether the impugned decisions are arbitrary or perverse, but cannot substitute its own views or direct premature release. Any such direction would amount to an exercise of remission, which is an executive function beyond the Court’s powers. Even if the Court finds merit in the challenge to the impugned SRB decisions, it may, at most, remit the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with law. However, the Petitioners’ prayer for direct release, it is urged, is legally untenable and unsupported by any binding precedent. In this regard, reliance is placed on State of Haryana & Ors. v. Daya Nand13, Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh14, State of Haryana v. Jagdish15, Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu16, and Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj v. State (NCT of Delhi)17.

13.3 SRB Consideration was in accordance with law: The cases of each of the Petitioners were considered for premature release as and when they became eligible. The rejections were made after due application of mind, and the SRB’s decisions are supported by material placed before it. Factors considered include the nature of the original offence, potential for reformation, possibility of reintegration into society, and the convict’s foundation of natural It is not only appropriate but is a solemn duty of every adjudicatory body, including the tribunals, to state the reasons in support of its decisions. Reasoning is the soul of a judgment and embodies one of the three pillars on which the very justice jurisprudence rests. It is informative to the claimant of the basis for rejection of his claim, as well as provides the grounds for challenging higher before authority/constitutional court. The reasons, therefore, enable the authorities, before whom an order is challenged, to test the veracity and correctness of the impugned order. In the present times, since the fine line of distinction between the functioning of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies is gradually becoming faint, even the administrative bodies are required to pass reasoned orders. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India [(1976) 2 SCC 981]; and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla & Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785].” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:10:50 W.P. (CRL.) 1431/2023 & Ors. Page 44 of 82 [Emphasis Supplied]

50. The Supreme Court has also consistently emphasised that reasons are an essential facet of natural justice. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India32, the Court emphasised that the rule requiring reasons is not a mere formality but a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making. It was observed that the requirement must be observed in its true spirit, and “mere pretence of compliance” would not suffice. This principle was further reinforced in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India33, where it was held that giving reasons serves as a check against abuse of power.34

51. In a recent Constitution Bench decision in In Re: Policy Strategy for grant of Bail35, the Supreme Court held that once a remission policy is in place, the State has an affirmative duty to proactively consider eligible convicts for premature release, even in the absence of a formal application. Recognising that such decisions directly impact the personal liberty of the convict under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court also observed that the reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be ‘clearly delineated’ and the final decision should be communicated to the convict. The Court held that the requirement of providing reasons, whether for allowing or rejecting remission, must be read into the framework of Section 432 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 473 of BNSS). The relevant excerpt reads: “REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS 17. 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, the requirement of recording reasons either for granting or rejecting the prayer for permanent remission will have to be read into the provisions of