The Delhi High Court has issued a significant ruling recommending systemic reforms in how decisions regarding the premature release of life convicts are made. Emphasizing the role of mental health in evaluating reformation, the Court advised the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Prison Department to institutionalize the involvement of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in the Sentence Review Board (SRB) process.
"A convict's transformation into a potentially reformed individual cannot be meaningfully evaluated without examining the underlying psychological trajectory," Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.
The case involved petitions from convicts including Santosh Kumar Singh—convicted in the 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case—challenging the SRB’s rejection of their premature release pleas. The Court found the SRB decisions to be unreasoned and lacking in fairness, setting aside three rejections and ordering a fresh review.
Court's Key Observations and Guidelines
Mandatory Psychological Assessment: The Court called for qualified clinical psychologists or psychiatrists to evaluate convicts eligible for early release, either through amendments in the Delhi Prison Rules or administrative orders.
Expert Supplement to Probation Officers: While acknowledging the role of Probation Officers, the Court stressed that expert mental health evaluations must complement their assessments, especially where risk of reoffending is central.
Victim Participation Protocol: Highlighting inconsistencies in current practice, the Court directed the government to create a structured mechanism to sensitively and effectively incorporate victim or family input.
"Where such input cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, the Social Welfare Officer must submit a reasoned report indicating steps taken," the Court instructed.
Transparent Records and Reasoned Decisions: SRB must document whether and how victim input was considered, and all rejection orders should clearly reflect consideration of reformation efforts.
Read also:- The Supreme Court Allowed the Transfer of Confiscated Property of the M3M Group. What Was the Allegation?
Despite a clean jail record, participation in rehabilitation programs, and employment as a legal consultant while in Open Prison, Singh’s premature release was repeatedly denied based solely on the heinous nature of the original crime. The Court held that such mechanical rejection violated fairness.
"The rejection order neither discloses a meaningful application of mind nor reflects a reasoned analysis of the reformative efforts made by the petitioner," the Court stated.
Moreover, a prior SRB recommendation for Singh’s release in 2017 was later overruled without valid reasoning—an act the Court deemed arbitrary and opaque.
Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters
