Law Must Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner: Delhi HC on Remission for Ex-President’s Bodyguard

The Delhi High Court has delivered a detailed and philosophically grounded judgment examining the constitutional limits of prolonged incarceration and the manner in which remission powers are exercised by the State.

A single judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while allowing the petition seeking premature release, scrutinised the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting remission and held that such decisions must reflect genuine application of mind to reformative factors, mandated under the applicable policy.

The Court examined whether repeated rejection of remission solely on the heinousness of a crime committed over two decades ago aligns with constitutional principles and the reformative theory of punishment.

"132. The primary objectives of punishment are reformative and preventive. The Petitioner has spent over 21 years in actual incarceration and 25 years and 7 months including remission. During this time, he earned multiple Certificates of recognition for his "good conduct, hard work, and excellent services";

133. Continued incarceration after 25 years of documented reform, serves no preventive purpose; instead turns the punishment into a purely retributive exercise - what the Supreme Court terms “savage justice” - which crushes the life force of the individual without further benefit to society;

134. For the Petitioner, this Report Card spans over two decades of institutional discipline, vocational growth, and successful community re-entry tests. A prisoner's active contribution to the prison ecosystem is a primary indicator of a shift in their behavioural pattern. The Petitioner's record reflects a consistent history of being an asset to the prison administration.

135. The factors such commendations, vocational growth, and clean parole records are the “structured” indicators of reformation", the Court observed.

The petition was filed by a life convict who has been in custody since 2003 following his conviction for rape and robbery committed while he was serving as a member of the President’s Body Guard. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life in 2009, and his conviction was upheld in appeal in 2012.

Over the course of more than two decades of incarceration, the petitioner earned multiple commendations and certificates of recognition for good conduct, diligence, and discipline in jail. He participated in vocational, spiritual, yoga, and meditation programmes, availed parole and furlough on several occasions without adverse reports, and was repeatedly recommended for premature release by probation authorities.

Despite this, his case for remission was rejected on twelve occasions by the Sentence Review Board between 2016 and 2024.

The Court noted that even when the petitioner’s “propensity to commit crime” was recorded as nil, remission continued to be denied solely on the ground of the gravity and nature of the original offence. The judgment observed that the Minutes of the SRB meetings reflected a pattern of repetitive, formulaic reasoning, with little variation across years despite changing factual circumstances and consistent reports of reform.

Opening the judgment with a couplet by Mir Hasan on the irreversibility of time, the Court emphasised that punishment cannot remain frozen in the past.

सदा ऐश दौराँ दिखता नहीं

गया वक़्त फिर हाथ आता नहीं

                                                                                                                                                             ~ मीर ग़ुलाम हसन

It observed that prolonged incarceration without meaningful assessment of reform risks transforming punishment into retribution, contrary to constitutional values.

The Court undertook an extensive analysis of the reformative theory of punishment, observing that modern penology no longer views imprisonment merely as a tool of retribution or social vengeance. Instead, incarceration is intended to prepare an offender for reintegration into society, recognising that a prisoner does not shed all fundamental rights upon conviction.

Placing reliance on constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21, Supreme Court precedents, and international human rights principles, the Court underscored that remission serves as an institutional acknowledgment of reform.

It held that denial of remission cannot be justified indefinitely by invoking the gravity of the original crime, particularly where the convict has demonstrably reformed and has crossed the outer limits of incarceration contemplated under the applicable remission policy.

The judgment also examined the procedural framework governing remission under the 2004 Policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, stressing that the Sentence Review Board is required to pass speaking, reasoned orders based on multiple factors, including conduct in jail, likelihood of reoffending, and socio-economic rehabilitation.

The Court found that mechanical reliance on the nature of the offence, to the exclusion of all other considerations, undermines the very purpose of the remission framework.

Holding that the law must strike a balance between societal interest and the constitutional promise of reformation, the Court concluded that refusal of remission must be grounded in present-day assessment, not solely in past condemnation.

Case Title: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 30.01.2026