The criminal justice system prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution; prolonged incarceration without evidence of reformation or current dangerousness violates the right to liberty.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

lnk ,s'k nkSjk¡ fn[kkrk ugha

x;k oD+r fQj gkFk vkrk ugha

&ehj x+qyke glu

1. This timeless couplet by Mir Hasan serves as a poignant reminder that the passage of time is relentless and that moments once lost, do not return. In the realm of criminal justice, this truth acquires profound significance, because prolonged incarceration without a meaningful reassessment of reform, turns punishment into retribution. For the Petitioner, the time became static since 2003 when he, a Guard in the President House, was put in jail for most heinous and depraved crime of Rape and Robbery committed on a young girl. No amount of remorse and reformation over this long period has proven to be of any worth, as his Remission has been consistently rejected twelve times, since 2016.

2. The present Petition compels this Court to examine whether earning Commendations and Certificates in more than two decades of incarceration of the Petitioner, reflects a reformation that underpins the constitutional and Remission framework or the gravity of offence committed two decades back, would remain unyielding constant factor while considering the remissions.

3. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S.”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Harpreet Singh, seeking premature release in accordance with the Policy dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Ld. Lt. Governor of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “L.G.”) and for setting aside the Minutes of the Sentence Review Board (hereinafter referred to as “SRB”) dated 23.02.2024, whereby the Petitioner's plea for premature release was rejected, as well as the Order dated 15.10.2024 whereby the said Minutes of Meeting were approved by the Hon'ble L.G.

4. Briefly stated, the Respondent, vide Order dated 16.07.2004 bearing No. F18/5/94/Home (Gen1), constituted the SRB to review the sentences awarded to prisoners undergoing life imprisonment upon conviction by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction in Delhi, and to make recommendations regarding cases of premature release, in accordance with the criteria formulated thereunder.

5. Petitioner, was convicted under S. 366/376/394/34 IPC by the Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, vide judgement dated 17.08.2009, in relation to the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 247 of 2003 registered at P.S. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, under Sections 366 /394/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ ”). He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with a fine of INR 5,000, vide Order dated 22.08.2009. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal against conviction and Order on sentence before this Court, which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 23.08.2012.

6. The Petitioner has submitted that on 26.02.2013, while lodged at Central Jail No. 4, Tihar Jail, he was placed on the commendation roll by the Jail Superintendent, on account of his outstanding dedication and devotion in the maintenance work allotted to him. He displayed noteworthy diligence in the work assigned to him as a sahayak.

7. On 26.01.2014, the Petitioner was awarded a Certificate of recognition by the Jail Superintendent in appreciation of his “good conduct and hard work” and again on 15.08.2015 for “hard work, maintaining discipline and helping prison administration.”

8. On 06.01.2016, the case of the Petitioner was considered for premature release under the Policy dated 16.07.2004 and was rejected by the SRB. There was nothing adverse reporte