In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has ordered the premature release of a life convict, observing that repeated rejection of remission was arbitrary and failed to consider reform and rehabilitation. The Court stressed that long incarceration coupled with good conduct cannot be ignored indefinitely.
Background of the Case
The case, Rajab Ali @ Babloo vs State (NCT of Delhi), concerned a petitioner convicted in 2005 under Section 376 IPC. His conviction was upheld in 2010, and he has remained in custody since January 2003.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds UPSIDA’s Cancellation of Piaggio’s 33-Acre Plot in Noida Over Non-Utilisation
Over the years, the petitioner completed more than 22 years of actual imprisonment and over 28 years including remission. Despite becoming eligible for premature release, his case was rejected ten times by the Sentence Review Board (SRB), most recently in August and September 2024.
The SRB consistently cited the gravity of the offence, opposition from police authorities, and societal concerns as reasons for denial.
The petitioner argued that the SRB ignored crucial factors such as:
- His satisfactory jail conduct
- Multiple paroles and furloughs without violation
- Work and rehabilitation efforts inside prison
- Recommendations from probation and social welfare authorities
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Doctor in Child Surgery Case, Says Trial Was 'Abuse of Process'
He contended that the decision-making process had become repetitive and mechanical, focusing only on the nature of the offence rather than his reform.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the pattern of SRB decisions and found a clear lack of meaningful evaluation.
“The reasons for rejecting the remission remained practically the same… the exercise has become routine,” the Court noted.
The Court emphasized that:
- Gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground for denying remission.
- Reformative justice requires assessing whether the convict has changed.
- Reports from welfare and probation authorities were largely positive but ignored.
Importantly, the Court observed that the petitioner’s placement in a semi-open jail and recommendation for open prison reflected trust and reform.
“There could not have been better evidence of him being fully reformed in his character and disposition,” the Court remarked.
The Court found that SRB orders lacked proper reasoning and resembled “copy-paste” decisions.
“It is not the brevity of an order, but it being devoid of reason, which is fatal,” the bench observed.
It further held that relying excessively on police opposition and public sentiment, without assessing individual progress, violated principles of fairness and natural justice.
Read also:- Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeals in Tamil Nadu Family Dispute Killing, Reduces Sentence to 3 Years
The Court reiterated that:
- Remission policies are rooted in reformative theory
- Good conduct and reintegration potential must be given due weight
- Executive decisions on remission are subject to judicial review if arbitrary
The Court also noted that continued incarceration despite clear reform could violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Setting aside the SRB’s decisions and the Lt. Governor’s approval, the Court held:
“The petitioner… has met all the requisite parameters… and is entitled to remission and release.”
The Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajab Ali @ Babloo vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) No. 1336/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 06 April 2026
