Latest news with #SentenceReviewBoard
News18
03-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
‘Mental Health, Victim Input Must Be Part Of Premature Release Decisions': Delhi High Court
The bench was ruling on petitions challenging the denial of early release to convicts, including one filed by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case In a judgement concerning the administration of criminal justice and the rights of convicts, the Delhi High Court has recommended sweeping reforms in the framework governing premature release of life convicts. The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while ruling on a batch of petitions challenging the denial of early release to convicts, including one filed by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the infamous 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case, flagged serious procedural gaps in the functioning of the Sentence Review Board (SRB). The court held that decisions on premature release must align with constitutional imperatives of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasoned decision-making. It observed that the current system lacks structural integrity and fails to reflect a substantive evaluation of a convict's reformative progress. Lack of Mental Health Evaluation 'Significant Shortcoming' The court found that the current framework under the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR) does not mandate formal psychological assessments by mental health professionals, a flaw the Court described as 'significant". 'A convict's transformation into a potentially reformed individual cannot be meaningfully evaluated without examining the underlying psychological trajectory," the court said. To address this, the court issued a set of binding guidelines recommending that the Delhi government and the department of prisons expeditiously institutionalise the involvement of qualified clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in the SRB process. It directed that psychological evaluations be formally incorporated either through amendments to the DPR or via administrative guidelines. The court emphasised that while the input of probation officers is valuable, it must be supplemented by expert psychological opinion, particularly in cases where the risk of reoffending is central to the decision. Inclusion of Victim's Perspective Must Be Standardised Highlighting the inconsistent implementation of 'victim response" in the current Social Welfare Department format, the court directed the GNCTD to evolve a structured protocol to incorporate victims' perspectives in a sensitive, time-bound, and trauma-informed manner. Where such input cannot be gathered despite reasonable efforts, the Social Welfare Officer must provide a reasoned explanation, and the SRB must document how any victim response was received and considered. SRB's Orders Must Be Reasoned and Non-Mechanical The court was hearing petitions filed by convicts serving life sentences in four separate cases. The petitioners, including Santosh Kumar Singh, had challenged the rejection of their premature release pleas by the SRB, arguing that the decisions were mechanical, lacked application of mind, and failed to account for their conduct during incarceration. In Singh's case, the court found that although the Social Welfare Department had made a favourable recommendation, the SRB failed to acknowledge or reconcile this with the opposing police report. The impugned decision showed no effort to evaluate Singh's positive post-conviction record, including his advanced educational qualifications and participation in prison rehabilitation programmes. 'Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned decision of the SRB cannot be sustained. The rejection order neither discloses a meaningful application of mind nor does it reflect a reasoned analysis of the reformative efforts made by the Petitioner," the court said. The court set aside the SRB's orders in three out of the four petitions, including Singh's, and remanded them back for fresh consideration in accordance with the new directions. In one petition, however, the court upheld the SRB's decision. In doing so, the court stressed that the current functioning of the SRB requires both procedural and substantive overhaul to ensure fairness and transparency. Sukriti Mishra Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
The Print
16-06-2025
- The Print
Delhi HC orders state to reconsider prisoner's premature release
The court was hearing the plea of one Vikram Yadav, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2001 murder case, and had undergone over 21 years imprisonment without remission. Justice Girish Kathpalia, referring to Kautilya's Arthashastra, said the release of convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of the term of imprisonment imposed on them was a significant part of ancient Hindu jurisprudence. New Delhi, Jun 16 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has said for a punishment to be scientific, it ought to 'have an end somewhere' during the convict's lifetime and ordered the state to reconsider a prisoner's plea for premature release. Earlier, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejected his case for premature release five times between August 2020 and June 2023, following which the present petition was filed. In an order on June 11, the judge said, 'Kautilya's Arthshastra makes references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing that later came to be known as remission. Release of convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of the term of imprisonment imposed on them was a significant part of the ancient Hindu jurisprudence.' Kautilya, the judge said, advocated for the periodic exercise of premature release of prisoners, who were young or very old or ailing and those who maintained good conduct in prison. 'To recapitulate in the present case, the premature release has been declined to the petitioner on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the crime (abduction for ransom and murder); jumping of parole and re-arrest in two other criminal cases, showing non reformative attitude; strong objection by police; and possibility of committing crime again. It would be apposite to examine each of these grounds individually,' the court said. The court said for reformative sentencing, such long incarceration as already undergone by Yadav, in a crime occurring in 2001, 'the perversity must be visualised as faded'. The 'wound suffered by the kith and kin' of the victim which was fresh in the year 2001 would have been reduced to a scab, and time heals all wounds, the order added. 'This is the only way to fathom to ensure purposive application of the reformatory tool of premature release; otherwise, no convict would ever be granted an opportunity to reform himself,' the court said. The verdict said for a life imprisonment, awarded in gruesome offences in which the appropriate punishment was tad short of capital sentence, and a punishment to be scientific, there ought to be an 'end somewhere during the lifetime of the convict'. On the point of jumping parole and re-arrest, the court said it took place in 2015 following which there was 'not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct' against him. The petitioner was subsequently awarded a number of commendations by the jail authorities, the court noted. 'I have no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for a further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to society at large,' the judge said. He said the SRBs' approach needed to be 'reformation-oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics-dominated exercise'. 'The impugned decision of denial of premature release to the petitioner suffers from vices of non-application of mind and a completely mechanical approach to such a sensitive issue. But for the time being, instead of straightaway directing the premature release of the petitioner, it is considered appropriate that the SRB be given a chance to re-examine the entire issue,' the order said. The court underscored the need to reconsider the composition of the SRB, which it said, must include an eminent sociologist and a criminologist with 'missionary zeal and sensitivity' towards the reformation of the prisoner under consideration. 'Another vital component of SRB can be the concerned Jail Superintendent, who had the best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the prisoner concerned from close quarters,' the order said. PTI MNR MNR AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Indian Express
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Premature release of prisoners: Delhi HC suggests reconstitution of Sentence Review Board, fine-tuning 2004 policy
Hearing a murder convict's plea for premature release, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday referenced the reformatory policy of remission in Kautilya's Arthashastra and suggested that 'the competent authority' deliberate upon the composition of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) and reconstitute the same. It also suggested fine-tuning Delhi's 2004 sentence review policy. Justice Girish Kathpalia was dealing with a plea by a convict, who was serving life imprisonment for murder committed in 2001. He was seeking premature release after spending more than 21 years in prison with remission. The convict's case for premature release had been rejected by the SRB five times between 2020 and 2023, compelling him to then seek a direction from the Delhi High Court. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court directed the SRB to consider his case afresh. It further directed the SRB, that in case it does not find it to be a fit case to grant premature release to the convict, 'the decision of SRB shall be worded in a manner that one can decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB'. Holding that the SRB's decision of denial of premature release to the convict 'suffers from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach to such a sensitive issue', Justice Kathpalia noted, 'The composition of the SRB would make this court assume that each matter is discussed threadbare in such meetings. But unfortunately, the manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside.' 'Every instrumentality of the State, be it judicial or administrative, while deciding an issue must author the decision in such manner that deciphers what worked in the mind of the authority concerned. The court must have material before it to examine as to whether there was proper application of mind or not. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest proper application of mind by the SRB,' he added. Placing faith in the convict's reformation, the court observed, 'I have no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large.' Making a case for applying the reformatory tool of premature release or remission, the court recorded, '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. The wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab.' 'Time heals all wounds. This is the only way to fathom in order to ensure purposive application of the reformatory tool of premature release, otherwise no convict would be ever granted an opportunity to reform himself. For, life imprisonment, by its very nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict,' Justice Kathpalia said. While the state had opposed the convict's plea, referring to his misconduct in 2015 when he had jumped parole and his re-arrest in two more criminal cases, the court did not concur with the state's view. '…citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied premature release to the petitioner. 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 petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter, subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by the jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands acquitted in those two cases,' the court reasoned. The convict was issued six commendation certificates while in jail, which included appreciation for his work and performance on Republic Days, and his work in assisting jail administration in fighting COVID-19. Taking the commendation certificates into account, the court noted, '…the petitioner had done an extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona, due to which the jail administration succeeded in keeping Corona free the jail no.2, even while admitting and quarantining more than 8,200 newly admitted prisoners. These certificates, coupled with the fact that across a period of time, the petitioner was released on parole and furlough more than once show a substantial reformative growth of the petitioner, which is a vital indicator of reduced propensity to commit crime again.' 'As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again, merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has no
Time of India
01-06-2025
- Time of India
Lawyer, held guilty of abducting doctor & acquitted of murder, released on remission after 19 years in Yerawada jail
Pune: Leena Deosthale (65), who was serving a life sentence for the abduction of orthopaedic surgeon Dr Deepak Mahajan after being acquitted of murder, has walked out on remission after spending 19 years in Yerawada Central Prison. Deosthale's daughter, Deepti, who is undergoing life imprisonment in the case, has also applied for remission. Her plea is pending before a five-member Sentence Review Board of state govt for consideration. Leena, then a lawyer, and Deepti, a cookery expert and writer, are from Dahisar in Mumbai. According to police, they allegedly kidnapped and murdered 47-year-old Mahajan by forcibly giving him an overdose of sedatives after a foiled bid for a Rs25-lakh ransom in July 2006. Pune police arrested them on July 7, 2006, and later filed a chargesheet. On Dec 27, 2007, a fast-track court in Pune sentenced the mother-daughter duo to death. Bombay high court in 2009 acquitted them of murder for lack of evidence but convicted them for the doctor's abduction and ransom, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Leena applied for remission through the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Pune, because she spent 19 years in actual imprisonment and 26 years with remission since her arrest on July 7, 2006. The state prisons department opposed her plea on grounds of her complicity in a serious crime, and that her appeal against conviction was pending for hearing before the Supreme Court. DLSA's pro-bono lawyer Sachin Salunkhe, who represented Leena before the Sentence Review Board, said that under the guidance of DLSA secretary Sonal Patil, they meticulously reviewed the case, highlighting her incarceration, her remorse, her old age, and her potential for rehabilitation. Their efforts, rooted in the principle 'hate the sin, not the sinner' emphasised restorative justice and the possibility of reintegration into society. The Supreme Court, in its order of Sept 15, 2022, said that the cases of convicts spending 14 years in jail could be referred to govt for considering their premature release in a fixed time, irrespective of whether the appeal is pending or not, Salunkhe said. "The state govt resolution of 2006 states that a woman convict is eligible for remission if she has completed 60 years, undergone 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, and if she is physically weak. Another govt resolution of 2008 states that in cases relating to abduction with ransom under section 364 (a) of the Indian Penal Code, if a convict, irrespective of gender, has spent 10 years in jail with remission, totalling 16 years, is entitled to claim remission," he said. The board, after considering the apex court ruling and govt resolutions, on May 16 issued an order granting remission to Leena. She was released from jail on May 23, Salunkhe said. "Her release marks a milestone in the ongoing discourse on criminal justice reform, rehabilitation, and the balance between punishment and mercy." The prisons department also opposed Leena's remission on grounds that she had not deposited a fine of Rs59,000 as per the trial court's order. Salunkhe deposited the fine amount on her behalf to secure her release on remission. Pune: Leena Deosthale (65), who was serving a life sentence for the abduction of orthopaedic surgeon Dr Deepak Mahajan after being acquitted of murder, has walked out on remission after spending 19 years in Yerawada Central Prison. Deosthale's daughter, Deepti, who is undergoing life imprisonment in the case, has also applied for remission. Her plea is pending before a five-member Sentence Review Board of state govt for consideration. Leena, then a lawyer, and Deepti, a cookery expert and writer, are from Dahisar in Mumbai. According to police, they allegedly kidnapped and murdered 47-year-old Mahajan by forcibly giving him an overdose of sedatives after a foiled bid for a Rs25-lakh ransom in July 2006. Pune police arrested them on July 7, 2006, and later filed a chargesheet. On Dec 27, 2007, a fast-track court in Pune sentenced the mother-daughter duo to death. Bombay high court in 2009 acquitted them of murder for lack of evidence but convicted them for the doctor's abduction and ransom, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Leena applied for remission through the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Pune, because she spent 19 years in actual imprisonment and 26 years with remission since her arrest on July 7, 2006. The state prisons department opposed her plea on grounds of her complicity in a serious crime, and that her appeal against conviction was pending for hearing before the Supreme Court. DLSA's pro-bono lawyer Sachin Salunkhe, who represented Leena before the Sentence Review Board, said that under the guidance of DLSA secretary Sonal Patil, they meticulously reviewed the case, highlighting her incarceration, her remorse, her old age, and her potential for rehabilitation. Their efforts, rooted in the principle 'hate the sin, not the sinner' emphasised restorative justice and the possibility of reintegration into society. The Supreme Court, in its order of Sept 15, 2022, said that the cases of convicts spending 14 years in jail could be referred to govt for considering their premature release in a fixed time, irrespective of whether the appeal is pending or not, Salunkhe said. "The state govt resolution of 2006 states that a woman convict is eligible for remission if she has completed 60 years, undergone 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, and if she is physically weak. Another govt resolution of 2008 states that in cases relating to abduction with ransom under section 364 (a) of the Indian Penal Code, if a convict, irrespective of gender, has spent 10 years in jail with remission, totalling 16 years, is entitled to claim remission," he said. The board, after considering the apex court ruling and govt resolutions, on May 16 issued an order granting remission to Leena. She was released from jail on May 23, Salunkhe said. "Her release marks a milestone in the ongoing discourse on criminal justice reform, rehabilitation, and the balance between punishment and mercy." The prisons department also opposed Leena's remission on grounds that she had not deposited a fine of Rs59,000 as per the trial court's order. Salunkhe deposited the fine amount on her behalf to secure her release on remission.
