Delhi HC Asks Govt to Reconsider Life Convict’s Release, Cites Kautilya & Ashoka on Reform Grounds

Rooting remission in ancient Indian jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court cited Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Ashoka’s edicts while directing the government to reconsider the premature release of a life convict who had once jumped parole.

Observing that reformative justice must guide such decisions, a bench led by Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a 22-page judgment, remarked, "There existed a conscious and consistent thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in order to achieve the larger goal of peace in society by minimisation of crime and criminogenic tendencies. Later, thinkers across the globe nurtured the idea that reformatory policies are more productive than a deterrent and retributory approach to crime and criminal."

These observations came in a case where a man, booked under IPC Section 302 for murder and serving life imprisonment, had filed a plea before the high court seeking premature release under the Delhi Government’s 2004 remission policy.

It was the petitioner’s case that he had already served over 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission. He added that he had applied for premature release; however, his request had been rejected five times by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).

The said rejections were primarily based on the gravity and perversity of the offence, along with his 2010 parole jump. Further, the authorities had also pointed to his re-arrest in 2015 in two separate cases, although he was subsequently acquitted in both.

The Board had further alleged a non-reformative attitude based on his past conduct, and the police had also consistently raised objections.

Before the High Court, the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, argued that all of the SRB’s orders were mere copy-paste versions and that the Board had ignored recent developments.

While acknowledging that the petitioner had jumped parole, Katju contended that the incident occurred 15 years ago and should not, by any means, bar him from liberty or remission.

Presenting commendation certificates from jail and other authorities, the senior counsel highlighted his consistent good behaviour and emphasised that the SRB had failed to re-evaluate the case.

On the other hand, the State, represented by Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel, emphasised the seriousness of the crime and noted that commendation certificates alone were not enough.

Arguing that the SRB is a technical committee, the ASC contended that the high court’s scope under Article 226 is limited when it comes to reviewing its discretionary decisions.

Taking note of the submissions, the court, at the outset, noted that the SRB’s repeated rejections showed no real application of mind and were “virtually copy-paste” from earlier meetings.

"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. The composition of SRB needs to be re-examined by the authorities concerned so as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal...," the court added.

Addressing the parole violation, the court noted that the incident had occurred way back in 2015 and that more than a decade had passed since. It emphasised that there had not been even a whiff of any allegation of jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner.

Highlighting six commendation certificates issued by the jail and other authorities, the court remarked that these certificates reflected genuine reformative growth by the petitioner and should have been meaningfully considered.

"Commendation certificates are not just formalities; they are guiding tools for the SRB to assess real reform," the court added.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release.

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