The Delhi High Court on July 1 set aside a Sentence Review Board's (SRB) decision to reject a remission plea (plea for early release from prison) by Santosh Kumar Singh, who was convicted in 2006 for the rape and murder of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in 1996 [Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State (Govt. of the NCT) of Delhi].

Justice Sanjeev Narula ordered the SRB to reconsider the Singh's remission plea after noting that the Board failed to factor in several aspects, including the convict's good conduct in prison.

"While the SRB minutes briefly noted a positive recommendation by the Social Welfare Department, the same was neither discussed nor reconciled with the contrary police report in the impugned decision. No effort was made to evaluate the petitioner’s demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes," the judge said.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Singh, told the Court that Singh was classified as eligible for an open prison owing to his conduct, and is even permitted to leave the prison complex daily for his job as a legal consultant with a real estate firm. 

The Court noted that such clear indicators of reformation were not considered by the SRB in its decision. It, therefore, asked the SRB to reconsider the issue. Similar relief was also extended to three other life convicts. However, a similar plea by a fourth convict was turned down after noting that the SRB had rejected his remission request on valid grounds.

Singh has been in prison for over 21 years. He was initially awarded the death penalty by the High Court after it reversed his acquittal by a trial court. The Supreme Court later commuted his death sentence to one of life imprisonment.

In his plea before the High Court, he alleged that his plea for early release from prison was rejected by the SRB mechanically. The Court found merit in his argument and overturned the SRB's earlier decision, and directed the Board to reconsider the matter.

The SRB has been directed to give a fresh, reasoned decision within four months.

Notably, the Court also noticed certain gaps in the process through which the SRB generally decides on the premature release of convicts, including the failure to prioritise the psychological assessment of convicts.

The Court observed that the composition of the SRB does not include experts in criminology, forensic psychology or behavioral science.

The Court underscored the importance of a psychological evaluation of convicts by mental health professionals, noting that it is a critical component missing in the present framework.  

"In the absence of such clinical inputs, it may become difficult for the SRB to make an informed assessment as to whether a particular convict has genuinely lost the propensity to commit crime, a factor that lies at the heart of the policy rationale for premature release," it noted.

The Court recommended that the Delhi government and the Department of Prisons should expeditiously ensure the addition of mental health professionals in the process. 

A system to ensure the psychological assessment of eligible convicts by qualified clinical psychologists or psychiatrists should be introduced, the Court suggested.

"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," it added.

The Court also flagged the near-total exclusion of the victim’s perspective in the process and recommended that the government evolve a protocol for incorporating the victim's views.

The Court noted that while there is a column for the victim's response in a proforma issued by the Social Welfare Department, such columns are often left blank.

"A clear procedure should be established to locate, contact, and document the views of victims or their families in a sensitive and timebound manner, ensuring their voices are heard without causing retraumatisation. 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 ...The SRB should also maintain a written record of whether victim input was weighed in the final decision. Their exclusion from the process skews the balance towards the convict, to the detriment of the broader principles of restorative and retributive justice,” the Court said.

Another shortcoming noticed was the lack of any requirement for Probation Officers to consider expert inputs on the convict's mental state while submitting reports on the convict's suitability for earlier release from prison.

"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," the Court said.

Further, the Court reiterated that the SRB is expected to give a speaking order while deciding on requests for premature release from prison.

“The SRB must give cogent reasons in support of their decisions. Although, the law does not require elaborate reasoning but some degree of application of mind must be evident from the order. At the very least, the decision must reflect how inputs, reports and relevant factors were considered,” the Court stated. 

It also criticised the SRB for opining that a convict's good conduct in prison was no indication of how he may behave once released from prison.

“Such non application of mind in by SRB not only disregards the effort made by convicts towards reform but also disincentivises them to undertake rehabilitative endeavours in the future,” the order stated.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with advocates Amitabh Narendra, Amod Singh and Vignesh appeared for Santosh Kumar Singh. 

Advocates Ajay Verma and Bhoomika Uppal appeared for another life convict, Rajeev.

Advocates Jaiveer and Irshad appeared for convict Chander Prakash. 

Advocates Samar Bansal, Yamina Rizvi, Shrutika Pandey, Ragini Nagpal, Vedant Kapur and Kaustabh Chaturvedi appeared for convict Harish Kumar. 

Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari with advocates Arjit Sharma and Nikunj Bindal appeared for Delhi government in Santosh Kumar Singh’s case.

Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha with advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan and Sanskriti Nimbekar appeared for Delhi government in the rest of the cases.

[Read Judgment]