Judicial review of administrative decisions on premature release must ensure legality, not merit; arbitrary decisions without justification violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for seeking direction to the respondent to release Nazir Khan (hereinafter referred to as the "the petitioner") after setting aside and quashing the order dated 25.09.2018 qua the petitioner passed by Sentence Reviewing Board along with recommendations passed by the competent authority in its meeting held on 26.07.2018.

2. The relevant facts as reflecting from the record are that the petitioner along with other accused was put to trial arising out of FIR bearing no. 658/1994 registered at P.S. Connaught Place for the offences punishable under sections 147/148/149/342/365/384/34 IPC and sections 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA").

2.1. The Court of Designated Judge, TADA, New Delhi vide judgment dated 26.04.2002 passed in Session Case bearing no. 43/2001 convicted the petitioner and other co-accused for the offences punishable under sections 364 and 364A read with section 120B IPC; under section 3(4) TADA Act; under sections 121A, 122 and 124A IPC and under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2.2. The petitioner along with other convicts vide order on sentence dated 27.04.2002 was sentenced to death for offences punishable under section 364A IPC read with section 120B IPC besides awarding of other sentences and imposition of fine for different offences as detailed in order on sentence dated 27.04.2022. The death sentence awarded to the petitioner was ordered to be subjected to the confirmation of the Supreme Court. The petitioner was also given benefit under section 428 of the Code. The sentences awarded to the petitioner under different provisions of IPC and TADA Act were ordered to be run concurrently.

2.3. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 734/2003 titled as Nazir Khan and others v. State of Delhi has altered the conviction of the petitioner under section 3(1)(i) TADA to section 3(1)(ii) TADA and further held that the incarceration for life sentence for the period of 20 years would be appropriate. It was further ordered that the petitioner and others would not be entitled to any remission for the period of 20 years. It was also observed that the imprisonment of life means imprisonment for the full span of life. The relevant part of the judgment dated 28.08.2003 reads as under:

In the case at hand, the entire planning for commission of offence punishable under Section, 364A was masterminded and executed by Umar Sheikh who has managed presently to go out of net of law. In his case, death sentence may have been appropriate. But in case of the co-conspirators (the present six accused appellants) similar approach is not warranted on the peculiar facts found/established. No distinctive feature has been indicated to impose two different sentences i.e. death sentence for three and life sentence for three others. There, is no appeal by the prosecution to enhance the sentence in those cases where life sentence has been imposed. It would be therefore appropriate to impose life sentence on all the six accused appellants.

In the ultimate, convictions of A-1, A-3 and 'A-8 under Section 3(1)(i) of TADA Act is altered to Section 3(1)(ii) of TADA Act. Their convictions under Sections 121A, 122 and 124 IPC and sentences imposed are maintained. The conviction under Section 364-A read with Section 120B IPC is maintained, as it is the conviction under Section 3(4) of the TADA Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for the concerned accused appellant along with sentence imposed.

However, considering the gravity of the offence and the dastardly nature of the acts and consequences which have flown out and would have flown in respect of the life sentence, incarceration for the period of 20 years would be appropriate. The accused app