"Every Wrong Deserves A Consequence; But Every Consequence Must Have A Limit”: Delhi High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Life Convict’s Plea For Premature Release
The Court said the rejection of premature release suffered from non-application of mind and must be reconsidered in accordance with the 2004 policy.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the Sentence Review Board to reconsider the case of a life convict who has undergone over 21 years of imprisonment including remission, observing that prolonged incarceration without meaningful review defeats the objective of reformation.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “Every wrong deserves a consequence; but every consequence must have a limit, lest it became wrong in itself. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics dominated exercise.”
The Court added, “The SRB deals with human beings and not with commodities, for whom numbers are sufficient identity.”
Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju appeared for the Petitioner, while ASC Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was convicted in two criminal cases involving charges of murder and conspiracy and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had by the time of filing the present petition undergone over 18 years of actual incarceration and more than 21 years, including remission.
Beginning in 2020, the Petitioner’s applications for premature release under the Delhi Government’s 2004 policy were rejected five times by the Sentence Review Board. The SRB cited the gravity of the offence, an instance of parole jump in 2010, and subsequent re-arrests in two other cases, in both of which the Petitioner was acquitted in 2018.
The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking relief, and upon being granted liberty to do so, he approached the High Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court scrutinised the SRB’s minutes of meetings and noted, “The operative minutes of meeting dated 30.06.2023 are virtually copy-paste of the minutes of earlier meetings… the allegation of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside.”
On the composition and functioning of SRB, the Court observed, “The SRB deals with human beings. Their fate cannot be determined by filling of a pro forma. The composition of SRB needs to be re-examined by the authorities concerned so as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal.”
The Court proposed inclusion of the original sentencing judge (or successor), a sociologist, a criminologist, and the Jail Superintendent to enable an informed and nuanced review process.
As for the nature of the crime, the Court acknowledged its severity but noted, “Not that due to passage of time, the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. Time heals all wounds. That is why even civil law does not permit past misconduct to adversely affect a person endlessly.”
Regarding the parole jump and subsequent re-arrest, the Court stated, “Some point of time has to be there, when aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a decade since the said misconduct. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner.”
On the potential for reoffending, the Court rejected mere reliance on physical youthfulness and said that bodily strength has no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. “The petitioner has filed six Commendation Certificates issued by the jail authorities and an Appreciation Certificate issued by the NGO Prayas, which show a substantial reformative growth in the petitioner, a vital indicator of reduced propensity to commit crime again”, the Bench added.
The further remarked, “The police also has to shift their paradigm from oppressive punitive approach to reformatory approach. Not everything propounded for an accused or a convict has to be opposed by police as a matter of routine.”
The Court held, “The impugned decision of denial of premature release to the petitioner suffers from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach to such a sensitive issue.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to reconsider the Petitioner’s request for premature release afresh, in accordance with the Delhi Government’s 2004 policy and the parameters discussed in the judgment.
The Court further directed that future decisions of the Sentence Review Board must clearly disclose the reasoning, such that it is evident what factors weighed with the Board for or against the prisoner concerned.
In addition, the Court directed the competent authority to consider restructuring the composition of the Sentence Review Board and to update the 2004 policy in light of the observations made in the judgment.
Cause Title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC4946)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju; Advocates Ali Chaudhary, Shristi Borthakur, Abuzar Ali
Respondent: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari; Advocates Sushant Bali, Avita Bhandari, Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal
