Delhi HC: Sentence review board needs reform

Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a detailed 22-page order, said the SRB’s current composition—dominated by senior government officials who often deputise the task—lacked the operational depth and personal engagement needed to evaluate prisoners’ reformative progress

The Delhi high court on Wednesday suggested that the Delhi government reconstitute the sentence review board (SRB), which handles premature release pleas of life convicts, observing that the board was mechanically rejecting applications without meaningful review.

The court’s observations came while allowing the petition of a murder convict who had served over 21 years and challenged the SRB’s June 2023 denial of his premature release. (FILE)

Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a detailed 22-page order, said the SRB’s current composition—dominated by senior government officials who often deputise the task—lacked the operational depth and personal engagement needed to evaluate prisoners’ reformative progress. “The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation-orientated and not a routine disposal/statistics-dominated exercise,” the court said.

The court’s observations came while allowing the petition of a murder convict who had served over 21 years and challenged the SRB’s June 2023 denial of his premature release. The convict argued that the SRB’s decision was a “copy-paste” of previous rejections and failed to account for recent developments in his conduct.

The HC agreed, noting, “The manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside.” It directed the SRB to reconsider the application afresh within four weeks and communicate its decision to the petitioner within another week, with proper reasoning.

Suggesting reforms, justice Kathpalia proposed including the judicial officer who originally sentenced the convict, a sociologist, a criminologist, and the jail superintendent familiar with the prisoner’s reformation journey in the SRB. “The composition should be based on a nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the member concerned, instead of just high official designation,” he stated.

To be sure, currently, the SRB includes the Union home minister as chairperson and members such as the principal secretary (Home), secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), and district & sessions Judge—all of whom often send representatives due to their workload. “Their opting to send representatives... cannot be faulted with, but it dilutes the intended impact of the policy,” justice Kathpalia observed.

The court also recommended changes to the 2004 policy to include these reformative parameters and member profiles, stressing that the focus should be rehabilitation, not bureaucracy.