Gravity of Offence and National Security Concerns Override Long Incarceration in TADA Convict's Premature Release Plea: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-08

Delhi High Court Upholds Denial of Premature Release for TADA Convict in 1994 Foreigner Kidnapping Case, Citing National Security

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea for premature release filed by Nasir Mohd Sodozey, a life convict in the 1994 kidnapping of four foreign nationals. The court, led by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the Sentence Review Board's (SRB) decision, ruling that the grave nature of the terrorist act and overriding concerns for national security outweigh the convict's long period of incarceration, which exceeds 28 years.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Nasir Mohd Sodozey, was convicted for his role in a terrorist conspiracy orchestrated by the proscribed organization Harqat-ul-Ansar. The plot involved kidnapping four foreign nationals to pressure the Indian government into releasing jailed militants. Convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), and the Foreigners Act, Sodozey was initially sentenced to death. The Supreme Court later commuted this sentence to life imprisonment in 2003, with a stipulation that he would not be entitled to remission for a period of 20 years.

Having served over 28 years in actual imprisonment (and over 30 years including remission), Sodozey's case was presented to the Sentence Review Board (SRB) for premature release. On June 30, 2023, the SRB rejected his request, citing the "terrorist act," the gravity of the crime, unsatisfactory jail conduct, and an assessment that he had not lost the "propensity to commit crime." This rejection prompted the current writ petition before the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions: - Counsel for the petitioner argued that the SRB's decision was contrary to the 2004 premature release policy of the Delhi Government. - It was contended that even for heinous crimes, the policy caps the maximum period of incarceration at 25 years, a threshold the petitioner had already crossed. - The petitioner’s lawyer asserted that continued detention based solely on the decades-old gravity of the offense, while ignoring subsequent conduct and reformation, was legally impermissible and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Joseph v State of Kerala .

State's Opposition: - The State vehemently opposed the plea, justifying the SRB's decision by emphasizing the severe societal ramifications of the crime—a terrorist conspiracy to coerce the sovereign Government of India. - It was argued that the 2004 policy does not confer an absolute right to release after 25 years but merely eligibility for consideration . - The State highlighted the petitioner's association with co-conspirator Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was released in 1999 following the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814, as evidence of deep-rooted connections that pose a continuing threat to national security. - The petitioner's "unsatisfactory" overall jail conduct, marked by four recorded punishments, was also cited as a reason for denial.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Sanjeev Narula, in his judgment, underscored the exceptional gravity of the offense, stating it was "not merely an ordinary crime but an attack upon the very fabric of civil order."

The court drew heavily from a coordinate bench's decision in Nazir Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) , which involved a co-accused from the same FIR whose plea for premature release was also rejected. The court found the factual matrix "materially indistinguishable" and applied the same reasoning.

Key excerpts from the judgment highlight the court's rationale:

"In cases touching terrorism, offences against the State, or crimes with a bearing on national security, considerations of public safety may legitimately override the reformative claims of an individual convict... In the present case, the act of abducting foreign nationals was calculated to project a threat against the sovereignty of India, with international ramifications."

The court also dismissed the argument that completion of 25 years creates a vested right to release, reiterating the Supreme Court's position in Union of India v. V. Sriharan that "remission or premature release is not a fundamental right." The 25-year period is merely a trigger for consideration, not an automatic mandate for release.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no infirmity in the SRB's decision, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court concluded that despite the petitioner's long incarceration, the nature of the crime, its societal impact, and legitimate national security concerns were overriding factors. The balance, the court noted, "tilts decisively in favour of societal and national security concerns."

While dismissing the plea, the court clarified that the competent authorities could place the petitioner's case before the Sentence Review Board for future consideration in accordance with the law. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of terrorism and threats to the state, the 'welfare of society' remains a paramount consideration in matters of remission.