The Delhi High Court has held that the possibility of a premature release sending a “wrong” or “negative” message to society against the justice system, as well as baseless or unsubstantiated apprehensions expressed by victims or witnesses, cannot be treated as relevant factors while deciding a convict's plea for premature release.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that any assessment of the likelihood of a convict reoffending must instead be based on his antecedents and conduct in jail.

The Court made the observation while dealing with the pleas of two life convicts, Ramesh and Tasleem, seeking premature release after repeated rejections by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).

Ramesh was convicted for rape and culpable homicide. He had undergone actual imprisonment of more than 31 years, exclusive of remission. Including remission earned, the period of custody suffered by him exceeded 40 years.

Tasleem was convicted for offence of gang rape. He had undergone actual imprisonment of over 15 years, exclusive of remission. Including remission, the period of custody suffered by him was over 19 years.

The Court, after examining the statutory framework, the 2004 Guidelines, the Delhi Prison Rules and precedents on remission, set out the governing principles for premature release.

It held that remission concerns the shortening of the execution of a sentence and does not affect either the guilt of the convict or the sentence imposed by the Court. It is also distinct from pardon, amnesty, reprieve, respite or commutation.

On the factors to be considered, the Court held that the gravity of the original offence and the length of sentence imposed are not relevant considerations for deciding a plea for premature release.

It reasoned that these are static and historical facts which neither the convict nor the passage of time can alter. If they were treated as decisive, the very possibility of premature release would effectively be eliminated.

The Court further emphasised that legitimate penological considerations must balance punishment, deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation.

A policy under which punishment becomes progressively greater merely because time passes, particularly in the case of a life sentence, would risk transforming life imprisonment into a form of “retributive death by incarceration” and undermine the reformative purpose of the State's machinery, it said.

The Court also held that the consideration that premature release of a person convicted of a heinous offence would send a “wrong” or “negative” message to society against the justice system is not a relevant factor under the statutory framework governing premature release.

The Court also rejected the use of baseless or unsubstantiated apprehensions of victims or witnesses as a determinative consideration.

It held that any assessment of the likelihood of a convict committing an offence after release must be based on the convict's antecedents and conduct in jail, rather than merely on apprehensions expressed by victims or witnesses.

The Court concluded by holding that post-conviction conduct is the principal indicator of reformation for the purpose of assessing premature release and in the absence of contemporary evidence to the contrary, sustained good conduct in custody cannot be ignored.

The Court further held that where a convict has progressed from a regular prison to a semi-open prison and thereafter to an open prison with a good record, such progression is a critical factor in assessing premature release.

The Court also clarified the role of police recommendations in the process and held that mere police opposition to premature release is irrelevant unless supported by cogent material, and the SRB cannot decline release merely because the police have not recommended it.

Applying these principles, the Court found that Ramesh had undergone more than 31 years of actual imprisonment and over 40 years including remission. His plea for premature release had been repeatedly rejected, and the Court found the SRB's approach inconsistent with the State's own policy.

In Tasleem's case, the Court noted that he had undergone more than 15 years of actual imprisonment and over three years of remission, satisfying the eligibility criteria under the applicable guidelines.

Finding that the SRB had relied on impermissible considerations including the gravity of the original offence, the perceived “wrong message” to society and abstract concerns regarding public faith in the justice system, while disregarding post-conviction conduct and favourable reports, the Court held the rejections arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

It consequently directed that both be released from custody forthwith.

Appearance: Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha, Ms. Ragini Nagpal, Ms. Shrutika Pandey, Mr. Rahul and Mr. Arjun Chopra, Advocates. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Amicus-Curiae with Ms. Anushka Baruah and Mr. Chinmay Kanojia, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for Respondents

Case title: Ramesh v. State

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 2875/2025

Click here to read order