Premature Release Of Prisoners: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Composition, Decision-Making Process Of Sentence Review Board

SRB is constituted to review sentences awarded to prisoners and for recommending the premature release in appropriate cases.

Justice Girish Kathpali was dealing with the case of a life convict, whose successive applications for premature release were rejected by the SRB. Read more here.

The bench noted that the operative minutes of meeting of SRB dated 30.06.2023 were virtually copy-paste of the minutes of earlier meetings dated 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021, and 21.10.2021.

Taking exception to this, the Court said, “The SRB deals with human beings, that too those who have been deprived of liberty across a long span of time on account of their aggression which led to criminality. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics dominated exercise.”

It is in this backdrop that the Court also noted that the profile and official engagements of members of the SRB is such that it is practically not possible for all of them to gather and scrutinize so many cases dealing with human attitudes and personality.

“The Chairman of the SRB being the Minister and members of SRB being the Principal Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), they opting to send their representatives owing to their overall heavy workload cannot be faulted with. Same is the status qua the District & Sessions Judge.”

It thus suggested the authorities to re-examine the composition of SRB so as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate with principles of reformation of criminals. The Court suggested,

- The composition of SRB must include the judicial officer concerned (or her/his successor) who sentenced the prisoner under consideration; that judicial officer would better contribute after examining the entire trial and sentencing records.

- Composition of SRB must include an eminent sociologist and a criminologist with missionary zeal and sensitivity towards reformation of the prisoner under consideration.

- Another vital component of SRB can be the concerned Jail Superintendent, who had the best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the prisoner concerned from close quarters.

- Further, in order to ensure meaningful exercise of sentence review, the Court said composition of SRB should be based on the nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the member concerned, instead of just high official designation of the member.

So far as the process of decision making is concerned, the Court suggested,

- A comparative inventory of aggravating and mitigating factors must be taken on record by SRB in order to arrive at its decision.

- SRB should also make a graded response in the sense that depending upon the scale of observed reformation of the prisoner, if the stage is considered a bit early for premature release, the prisoner can be shifted initially to semi-open prison, followed by open prison. “That gradual movement would give a taste of liberty to the prisoner, which would encourage him to push for his reformation and that would be a meaningful punishment.”

- SRB can also consider premature release of the convict/ prisoner with necessary directions in the nature of surveillance over a specific period, directing the prisoner/ convict to report before the local police on a weekly basis for a specific period. “The binary of grant or denial of premature release has to be discarded.”

Appearance: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shristi Borthakur and Mr. Abuzar Ali, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Mr. Sushant Bali, Ms. Avita Bhandari, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with Inspector Shrichand and SI Anil, PS Seemapuri for Respondent

Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024

Click here to read judgment