Delhi High Court: Involve Mental Health Professionals In Premature Release Process; Introduce Psychological Assessment System For Eligible Convicts
The Petitioners before the Delhi High Court were all life convicts, assailing the rejection of their claims for premature release by the Sentence Revenue Board.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Government and the Department of Prisons to institutionalise the involvement of mental health professionals in the premature release process and to introduce psychological assessment system for eligible convicts.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions raising fundamental questions relating to functioning of the Sentence Revenue Board (SRB), the executive body tasked with deciding whether convicts serving life sentences merit premature release.
The Petitioners were all life convicts, assailing 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 post-conviction conduct.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula issued the following directions –
(a) It is recommended that the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Department of Prisons take expeditious steps to institutionalise the involvement of mental health professionals in the premature release process. A system for psychological assessment of eligible convicts carried out, by qualified clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, should be introduced, either by amending the existing framework under the DPR or by issuing appropriate administrative guidelines. Such assessments must examine the convict’s emotional stability, insight into the offence, impulse control, and capacity for reintegration, thereby providing an objective foundation for evaluating the risk of recidivism.
(b) The role of the Probation Officer, while integral, must be supplemented by such expert input. In appropriate cases, the SRB may also consider calling for independent psychological evaluations, especially where the decision hinges on the convict’s likelihood to reoffend. A mere reliance on jail conduct or anecdotal impressions from prison staff does not adequately capture the psychological dimensions of reform and risk.
(c) The Court further recommends that the GNCTD evolve a structured protocol for incorporating victim perspectives in the premature release process. While the Social Welfare Department’s pro forma includes a field for “victim response”, its current implementation is haphazard and inconsistent. A clear procedure should be established to locate, contact, and document the views of victims or their families in a sensitive and time bound manner, ensuring their voices are heard without causing re traumatisation. Where such input cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, the Social Welfare Officer must provide a reasoned report indicating the steps taken and the reasons for non-availability.
(d) The SRB should also maintain a written record of whether victim input was received or solicited, and how such input was weighed in the final decision. This would enhance transparency, fortify public confidence in the process, and promote a restorative understanding of justice that respects both the rights of convicts and the dignity of victims.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocates Samar Bansal, Jaiveer, and Ajay Verma represented the Petitioners while Additional Standing Counsel (ASCs) Sanjeev Bhandari and Amol Sinha represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioners sought directions to the prison authorities for their premature release. They raised 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. In the first case, the Petitioner was convicted for the rape and murder of a 25-year-old law student and was awarded the death penalty by the High Court, however, this was later reduced to a sentence of life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in Appeal.
In the second case, the Petitioner was convicted of murder and abduction of the victim and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the competent Court. The Petitioner in the third case was convicted for the murder of a 22-year-old man, whom he was alleged to have intoxicated before committing the offence. The Petitioner in the fourth and last case was convicted for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old minor gild and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the competent Court.
Court’s Observations
The Court in the above context of the case, observed, “The power to grant premature release is not a continuation of the judicial sentencing process, but a distinct, post-conviction executive function grounded in the philosophy of reformation. While sentencing is a judicial function based on the facts and legal findings of the offence committed, the question of release involves a different enquiry altogether, one that balances the convict’s transformation with public interest and societal impact. This balance is best drawn not by the Court, but by the SRB, which is constituted precisely for this purpose. The SRB comprises representatives from the judiciary, prison administration, social welfare, and law enforcement – each contributing a unique institutional perspective to the overall evaluation.”
The Court added that the assessment of a convict’s readiness for reintegration into society cannot rest on a singular, siloed perspective as such a determination involves complex considerations: whether the individual has undergone genuine reformation, whether they retain criminal propensity, how their release might affect public confidence in the justice system, and what rehabilitative support systems are available.
“While this Court is empowered to ensure that such decisions are not arbitrary or procedurally flawed, it must resist the temptation to sit in judgment over the merits of individual release applications unless a clear and egregious miscarriage of justice is made out. The institutional design of the SRB is a deliberate one. It exists to bring coherence to a process that is neither entirely judicial nor entirely administrative, but straddles the boundaries of both. Particularly in cases involving heinous offences, where the punishment of life imprisonment has been upheld on the judicial side, the decision to grant premature release must be subjected to heightened scrutiny, not only in terms of the convict’s prison conduct but also from the lens of societal acceptance, deterrence, and victim impact. Such a complex assessment lies squarely within the domain of the SRB”, it further noted.
The Court reiterated that the process of allowing premature release is not a matter of right or entitlement, but an exercise of executive discretion and the SRB is specifically entrusted with this responsibility under a defined statutory and policy framework, and hence, its role cannot be supplanted by the Court except in rare cases where there is an egregious failure of process or manifest arbitrariness.
“Thus, while this Court has identified structural and procedural lapses in the functioning of the SRB, and has issued guidelines to remedy such gaps, it does not find the present cases to be fit for a direct order of release. Having regard to the nature of the function, the institutional competence of the SRB, and the balancing of public interest with individual reform, the proper course is to remand the deserving matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law”, it also said.
The Court emphasised that a convict’s transformation into a potentially reformed individual cannot be meaningfully evaluated without examining the underlying psychological trajectory.
“Unfortunately, in none of the cases under consideration has the Jail Superintendent furnished any detailed comments on the prisoner’s mental or emotional development. This creates significant gaps in assessing whether the convict has lost the propensity to commit crime, especially when such conclusions are cited in rejection orders without supporting material. The absence of such assessments not only detracts from the procedural rigour expected of the SRB’s exercise but also leaves a gaping void”, it remarked.
Court’s Suggestions
Moreover, the Court observed that the absence of a structured role for victims dilutes the balance that must be maintained between the interests of the convict and the legitimate expectations of justice from the victim’s standpoint. It added that a convict-centric approach deprives the entire process of a crucial perspective and results in decisions being made without any inputs from those who were most directly affected by the offence.
“A premature release regime that systematically sidelines the voice of the victim risks not only eroding public confidence in the justice system but also failing to meet the standards of a holistic and empathetic review process. This, in the opinion of the Court, is a gap that requires urgent attention through appropriate policy revision and structural reform”, it said.
The Court also emphasised that in order to ensure that the reconsideration by SRB is aligned with the objectives of the premature release Policy, and is conducted in accordance with the constitutional imperatives of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasoned decision-making, it is essential that the process of decision making be informed by a comprehensive and individualised assessment of each convict’s record.
“In the considered view of this Court, structural reform is necessary to guarantee that future SRB determinations are not only procedurally compliant but also substantively fair and just”, it remarked.
Specific Directions
The Court issued the following directions for the cases, intended to remedy systemic deficiencies and to reinforce procedural integrity going forward –
• All documentation prescribed under Rule 1256 of the DPR, which forms the core of the SRB’s decision-making process, shall be prepared afresh and placed before the Board in a time-bound manner.
• The SRB shall convene its next meeting within three months from the date of the Judgment. The Petitioners’ cases shall be placed for reconsideration at this meeting, based on a fresh evaluation of all material and reports, and render a fresh decision within a period of four months.
• To ensure adequate deliberation and proper application of mind in each case, the SRB shall take up only as many cases as can be reasonably decided in one meeting, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice reiterated in the Judgment.
• While evaluating the pending applications, the SRB shall make use of the structured checklist approved by the Court, to guide its determination and ensure that all relevant reformative and risk-based criteria are addressed in a reasoned and objective manner.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petitions and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Santosh Kumar Singh v. State (Govt. of the NCT) of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5138)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocates Samar Bansal, Jaiveer, Ajay Verma, Amitabh Narendra, Amod Singh, Vignesh, Bhoomika Uppal, Irshad, Yamina Rizvi, Shrutika Pandey, Ragini Nagpal, Vedant Kapur, and Kaustabh Chaturvedi.
Respondent: ASCs Sanjeev Bhandari, Amol Sinha, Advocates Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal, Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, and Sanskriti Nimbekar.
