Completion Of 25 Years Of Incarceration Does Not Create A Vested Right To Premature Release: Delhi High Court Dismisses Terror Convict's Plea
The Court held that the remission policy only confers eligibility and that in cases involving terrorism or offences against the State, national security concerns may justifiably outweigh individual reformative claims.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the completion of 25 years of incarceration does not create a vested right to premature release under the remission policy. The Court observed that the policy only provides eligibility for such consideration and that public safety, particularly in cases of terrorism and offences against the State, can legitimately outweigh the reformative claims of convicts.
The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of premature release by the Sentence Review Board. The petitioner, convicted in connection with a terrorist conspiracy involving the abduction of foreign nationals to secure the release of jailed militants, contended that he had already undergone more than 25 years of imprisonment and was entitled to release under the 2004 policy.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the plea, emphasising that “The submission that completion of 25 years of incarceration entitles the Petitioner to release is equally misconceived. The 2004 Policy does not create a vested right to release upon completion of 25 years; it merely confers eligibility for consideration.”
Advocate Akshay Bhandari appeared for the petitioner, while ASC Amol Sinha represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner was convicted under provisions of the IPC, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, and the Foreigners Act, for his role in a conspiracy carried out under the banner of the banned Harkat-ul-Ansar outfit. The offence involved the abduction of four foreign nationals in 1994, intending to pressure the Government of India to release imprisoned militants.
Initially sentenced to death, his punishment was commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in 2003, with the stipulation that he must undergo at least 20 years of incarceration without remission.
Having served more than two decades, he approached the Sentence Review Board for premature release under the 2004 policy. The Board rejected his application, citing the gravity of the offence, unsatisfactory conduct in prison, and concerns regarding potential risks to public safety.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court stressed that remission or premature release is not a fundamental right and that life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, unless lawfully curtailed by remission. The Court noted that “The ultimate decision rests on a holistic evaluation of factors such as the nature of the crime, the conduct of the prisoner during incarceration, the potential risk of recidivism, and the overall societal impact. Thus, the argument that release becomes automatic on completion of 25 years is unsustainable”
While acknowledging that prolonged incarceration is a relevant consideration, the Court held that it cannot prevail over the larger interests of society in cases involving terrorism or offences against the State. The Bench observed that such crimes are calculated to destabilise the State and spread fear both domestically and internationally, and therefore require a cautious approach prioritising public security.
“Such conduct is not merely an ordinary crime but an attack upon the very fabric of civil order, striking at the rule of law and the security of the State. The broader objective, employing fear and intimidation to secure political ends, marks this case apart from conventional offences, placing it in a category of exceptional gravity”, the Court held.
The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Nazir Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), where a co-convict’s request for premature release was similarly declined, underscoring that the exceptional gravity of such offences outweighs reformative claims of individual convicts.
Conclusion
Holding that the petitioner’s case did not warrant interference, the Court upheld the decision of the Sentence Review Board rejecting his premature release. The petition was accordingly dismissed with the clarification that his case may be considered afresh by the Sentence Review Board in the future in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Nasir Mohd Sodozey v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6675)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Akshay Bhandari, Anmol Sachdeva, Megha Saroa, Kushal Kumar, and Janak Raj.
Respondents: ASC Amol Sinha with Advocates Shitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Chavi Lazarus, Nitish Dhawan, and Sanskriti Nimbekar.