The Supreme Court, on April 21, 2025, sharply criticized the Delhi Government for the poor handling of a remission plea filed by a life convict. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called it a "sorry state of affairs" and emphasized that a deeper investigation into the matter is necessary.

“Perhaps a deeper probe is required in this case about the manner in which the court proceedings were handled by Delhi government,” the Court observed.

The case involves life convict Mohd. Arif, whose application for premature release was initially reviewed by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) in September 2024 but was deferred without a final decision. The Supreme Court, on November 25, 2024, directed that the matter be reconsidered by December 9, 2024.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Intervene in OTT Regulation Plea, Says It's a Policy Matter

However, the SRB met on December 10 and again deferred the decision, citing lack of consensus. The Court reminded the Delhi Government that as per Rule 1257(b) of the Delhi Prison Rules, if a unanimous decision isn't possible, the majority view must prevail. Yet, the meeting minutes failed to reflect what the majority view was.

“We have never seen such urgency on the part of Delhi government in dealing with the cases of premature release,” the Court remarked, noting that two meetings were held rapidly after this lapse, leading to the rejection of the convict’s plea.

During the hearing, it was revealed that officers present at the December meeting could not confirm whether the majority favored or opposed the convict’s release. This contradicted the Delhi Government’s earlier assurance that a decision would be made.

In court, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the State, promised that the SRB would meet again and present its findings by May 9, 2025.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order on Music Copyright Payment by Restaurants in PPL's Plea

Background of the Case

The Delhi Government claimed on February 7, 2025, that SRB recommendations had been forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor on February 2. However, an affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Prisons in March contradicted this, stating that the SRB had not reached any decision on December 10.

The Court responded by issuing a notice to the Home Department Secretary, seeking an explanation as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated.

“Only after a contempt notice was issued did the State hurriedly move to reject the petitioner's plea,” the Court observed.

Later, Principal Secretary A. Anbarasu filed an affidavit claiming the Court misunderstood the SRB’s recommendation. Reacting to this, Justice Oka said:

“Recommendation means either for premature release or against premature release. We are not children dealing with this for the first time.”

Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes Ongoing Dispute Over Durga Temple Idols in Himachal Pradesh

Calling the affidavit “most objectionable,” the Court ordered Anbarasu to appear in person on April 21.

During the latest hearing, the bench pressed officers for the majority opinion, but they failed to answer clearly. It was only revealed that the Home Minister, acting as SRB Chairman, opposed the release.

“If your rules say it should be done by majority, then members should not be deterred from deciding by majority… Only because Minister is opposing, you can’t say consensus was not reached,” Justice Oka told the officers. “It paints a very bad picture.”

The Court has asked the Delhi Government to file a report on the next SRB meeting by May 9, 2025, to ensure clarity and adherence to the rules.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 48045/2024

Case Title – Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)