“Deeper Probe Is Required”: Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi Government Over Its Handling Of Remission Cases

The Supreme Court today (April 21) slammed the Delhi Government for its handling of a prisoner's case seeking permanent remission.A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that a “sorry state of affairs” prevails in the manner in which Delhi government is dealing with issue of premature release of the prisoners.“Perhaps a deeper probe is required in this case about the manner in which the court proceedings were handled by Delhi government, and manner in which prayers for premature release are being dealt with by the Delhi government”, the Court observed.The case relates to a life convict whose application for premature release was considered by the SRB in September 2024 but was deferred. On November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court questioned the deferral and directed that the case be reconsidered before December 9, 2024.On December 9, 2024, the Court was informed that the SRB had met on December 10 but failed to reach a consensus. The minutes of that meeting noted that the decision was deferred due to a lack of consensus. However, the Court pointed out that Rule 1257(b) of the Delhi Prison Rules clearly states that if a unanimous decision is not possible, the majority view shall prevail and be treated as the Board's decision.Despite this Rule, the minutes did not record what the majority view was. The Court further noted that two officers who were present in the December 10 meeting and also appeared in court could not confirm whether the majority supported or opposed the petitioner's release. The Court also noted that the Delhi Government had earlier assured it that the petitioner's case would be considered in the December 10 meeting, which was not done.Following the December meeting, the Court observed that the Delhi Government convened two meetings in quick succession and rejected the petitioner's case. The Court remarked, “We have never seen such urgency on the part of Delhi government in dealing with the cases of premature release.”Faced with these observations, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the State assured the Court, on instructions from the two officers present, that the SRB would be convened again immediately to take a fresh decision. The Court directed the State to place the outcome of that meeting on record by May 9, 2025.BackgroundOn February 7, 2025, the Delhi Government told the Court that the SRB's recommendations had been placed before the Lieutenant Governor on February 2. However, on March 7, 2025, the Court found that claim to be false after considering an affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Prisons. The affidavit stated that the SRB had failed to arrive at a decision in its meeting on December 10 and made no mention of any recommendations being placed before the Lieutenant Governor.The Court issued notice to the Secretary of the Home Department of Delhi, asking him to explain why action, including under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be taken.On March 28, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department submitted an affidavit stating that what had been placed before the Lieutenant Governor was not a recommendation but the SRB's decision to defer the matter. The Court observed that a false and misleading statement had been made earlier and remarked that only after a contempt notice was issued did the State hurriedly move to reject the petitioner's plea.Thereafter, on April 15, the Court criticized the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary A. Anbarasu, who claimed that the Court was under the wrong impression that the SRB's recommendation from on February 2 was in favour of the prisoner. Justice Oka said, “Recommendation means either for premature release or against premature release. We are not children who are dealing with case of premature release for the first time. Can recommendation be read to mean that the member could not reach a consensus and that is the recommendation?”The Court found the stand taken in the affidavit “most objectionable” and directed Anbarasu to personally appear today, i.e. April 21.During the hearing today, the bench repeatedly asked what the majority opinion on the release of the petitioner was, but the officers present in the court could not answer, beyond telling the court that the Chairman of the SRB, i.e., the Home Minister of the Delhi government, opposed the petitioner's plea.Justice Oka reiterated that a decision must be taken by majority. He told the officers present in the court, “We are not against you, but we have held that when there is a policy, it is right of a detenue…he should be considered for remission. And if your rules say that it should be done by majority, then members should not be deterred from deciding by majority. Only because Minister is opposing, police are opposing, you can't say that we are not able to arrive consensus. It paints a very bad picture.”Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 48045/2024Case Title – Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Click Here To...

“Deeper Probe Is Required”: Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi Government Over Its Handling Of Remission Cases

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags