Supreme Court Criticizes Delhi Government Over Mishandling of Remission Applications, Calls for Deeper Inquiry

On April 21, the Supreme Court sharply criticized the Delhi Government for its handling of a case involving a life convict seeking permanent remission.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed dismay, observing that there was a “sorry state of affairs” in how the Delhi Government was managing cases related to the premature release of prisoners. The Court remarked that a more thorough investigation might be necessary into both the management of court proceedings and the handling of applications for early release by the authorities.

Background of the Case

The matter pertains to a life-term convict whose application for early release was initially taken up by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) in September 2024 but was deferred. Subsequently, on November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court questioned this delay and instructed that the case be reconsidered before December 9, 2024.

However, when the Court was updated on December 9, it was informed that the SRB had convened a meeting on December 10 but failed to reach a consensus, leading to another deferral. Importantly, the Court emphasized that under Rule 1257(b) of the Delhi Prison Rules, if unanimity cannot be achieved, the majority view should prevail. Despite this clear directive, the SRB meeting minutes failed to record what the majority opinion was.

Further concerns arose when two officers present at the December 10 meeting, who also appeared before the Court, could not confirm whether the majority supported or opposed the convict's release. Additionally, the Delhi Government had previously assured the Court that the case would be reconsidered in the December 10 meeting, which did not occur as promised.

Court's Stern Observations

The Court noted that after the December meeting, the Delhi Government unusually convened two quick successive meetings to reject the prisoner’s application. Commenting on this, the bench remarked, “We have never seen such urgency on the part of Delhi Government in dealing with cases of premature release.”

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing the State, assured the Court, after taking instructions from the officers present, that a fresh SRB meeting would be held immediately. The Court ordered that the outcome of this meeting must be filed by May 9, 2025.

Misleading Statements and Contempt Proceedings

The situation was further aggravated when, on February 7, 2025, the Delhi Government informed the Court that the SRB's recommendations had been forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor on February 2. However, a later affidavit from the Superintendent of Prisons contradicted this, revealing that the SRB had not arrived at any decision during the December 10 meeting. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the Home Department Secretary of Delhi, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

In response, on March 28, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department filed an affidavit clarifying that what had been placed before the Lieutenant Governor was merely an update about the deferral, not a recommendation. The Court, noting the misleading earlier statement, observed that the State appeared to have acted only after the threat of contempt proceedings.

On April 15, the Court strongly criticized the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary A. Anbarasu, who had contended that the Court misunderstood the situation. Rejecting this argument, Justice Oka commented, “Recommendation means either for or against premature release. We are not children dealing with such cases for the first time.”

Finding the affidavit highly inappropriate, the Court directed Anbarasu to be personally present in court on April 21.

During the latest hearing, the bench repeatedly asked the officials present about the majority opinion on the convict’s release. However, they failed to provide a definitive answer, merely stating that the Home Minister, who chairs the SRB, was opposed to the release.

Justice Oka emphasized the importance of following due procedure, stating, “We are not against you. But when there is a policy, it becomes the right of a detenue to be considered for remission. If your rules require a majority decision, members should not be deterred simply because senior officers oppose it. It reflects very poorly.”

The case, listed as Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 48045/2024, is titled Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).