The Delhi High Court has clarified that a life-convict’s eligibility for premature release under the Delhi Prison Rules is not an automatic right; the Sentence Review Board must conduct a holistic assessment of the inmate’s conduct, rehabilitation and socio-economic factors before recommending release.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rishi Rallan, a life-convict serving sentences for offences under Sections 302, 365, 201 and 120-B of the IPC, challenged the Sentence Review Board’s (SRB) decision dated 24.04.2025 which declined to recommend his premature release. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari.
Key Facts
- 13.02.2019: Conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) - life imprisonment; kidnapping (Sec. 365 IPC) - 7 years rigorous imprisonment; abetment of murder (Sec. 201 read with Sec. 120-B IPC) - 7 years rigorous imprisonment, all to run concurrently.
- 20.10.2022: Criminal Appeal No. 554/2019 dismissed by this Court; conviction and sentence affirmed.
- 03.07.2023: Special Leave Petition No. 7849/2023 dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- 30.01.2025: Order directing placement before SRB (W.P. (Crl.) No. 3373/2024).
- 24.04.2025: SRB meeting held; Board declined premature release, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal history, the gravity of the offence and the possibility of re-offending.
- 23.04.2025: Police report indicating the petitioner’s involvement in multiple cases.
- 14.05.2025: Premature Release Report by the Probation Officer noting the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct, educational achievements (BPP Programme, IGNOU), work as an electrician and yoga training.
- 26.01.2022 and 15.08.2023: Certificates of Recognition for good conduct and participation in jail activities.
- 10.12.2025: A warning issued to the petitioner (post-SRB decision).
- 15.10.2024: Police report recommending against premature release, citing 17 prior cases and poor financial status.
- 25.08.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Swaranya Kanta Sharma.
Procedural History
- 13.02.2019: Conviction and sentencing by Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari.
- 20.10.2022: Criminal Appeal No. 554/2019 dismissed by Delhi High Court.
- 03.07.2023: Special Leave Petition dismissed by Supreme Court.
- 30.01.2025: Order directing placement before SRB (W.P. (Crl.) No. 3373/2024).
- 24.04.2025: SRB meeting; decision to reject premature release.
- 25.08.2026: Present writ petition decided.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that he has served 15 years 11 months of actual imprisonment, earned 2 years 3 months remission, pursued education, received commendations, and has no criminal record post-2010. Seeks fresh consideration and release.
- Respondent (State): Maintains that eligibility for consideration does not create a vested right; the SRB correctly exercised discretion based on the gravity of the offence, prior criminal history and the petitioner’s age.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the SRB decision dated 24.04.2025 and a direction for the Board to reconsider his case, taking into account his conduct, rehabilitation and the statutory criteria under Rule 1251 and Rule 1257 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Sentence Review Board’s refusal to recommend premature release, based primarily on the petitioner’s past criminal history and the gravity of the offence, complied with the mandatory criteria of Rule 1251 and Rule 1257 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which require a holistic assessment of conduct, rehabilitation and socio-economic factors.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the SRB ignored material evidence of reform - educational qualifications, commendation certificates, satisfactory conduct during furloughs and parole, and the absence of any post-2010 offence. Reliance was placed on Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, Sharafat Ali v. State of U.P., Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, and the Court’s own decisions in Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), arguing that the Board must consider these factors under Rule 1257(c).
For the Respondent
The State argued that eligibility for consideration under Rule 1251 does not create a vested right to release and that the SRB correctly exercised its discretion by focusing on the seriousness of the murder, the petitioner’s prior criminal involvement and his age. The State relied on Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. and emphasized that the Board may decline release if the possibility of re-offending cannot be ruled out, as permitted by Rule 1251.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by outlining the reformative purpose of imprisonment and the statutory framework governing premature release. Rule 1251 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 makes clear that completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment renders a life-convict eligible for consideration, but does not confer an automatic right to release. The Court stressed that eligibility merely triggers the SRB’s discretion, which must be exercised in accordance with Rule 1257(c).
"The Board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner merely on the ground that the police have not recommended his release. The Board shall take into account the circumstances in which the offence was committed by the prisoner and whether he has the propensity and is likely to commit similar or other offence again."
The Court examined the precedent set in Laxman Naskar and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, noting that factors such as the nature of the offence, the probability of recurrence, the convict’s age, health, socio-economic condition and, crucially, the conduct during incarceration must be weighed. The judgment highlighted that a mechanical reliance on the gravity of the original offence, without assessing post-conviction conduct, contravenes the reformative ethos of the Rules.
The factual matrix showed that the petitioner had served 15 years 11 months of actual imprisonment, earned 2 years 3 months remission, and had no criminal record after 2010. He had completed the BPP Programme, obtained multiple commendation certificates, worked as an electrician, and participated in yoga and painting activities. The Court found that these materials, placed before the SRB, were material to assessing his propensity to re-offend and were not considered by the Board.
The Court also addressed the State’s reliance on the petitioner’s prior criminal history. While acknowledging that antecedent offences are relevant, the Court held that the SRB must balance them against the substantial period of reform demonstrated by the petitioner. The fact that all prior cases pre-dated the 2010 FIR and that the petitioner was either acquitted or had completed the sentences was significant.
In applying the statutory criteria, the Court concluded that the SRB’s decision was unreasoned and mechanical, failing to engage with the petitioner’s conduct, rehabilitation and socio-economic circumstances. Consequently, the decision could not be sustained.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the SRB decision dated 24.04.2025 and remitted the matter to the SRB for fresh consideration. The Board was directed to examine the petitioner’s conduct, rehabilitation, educational achievements and socio-economic factors, and to pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of this judgment. No immediate premature release was ordered.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Holistic Assessment Required
- Practitioners must ensure that applications for premature release include detailed evidence of the inmate’s conduct, educational qualifications, work experience and any commendations earned during incarceration.
- Courts will scrutinise whether the SRB has meaningfully considered all factors enumerated in Rule 1257(c) rather than relying solely on the gravity of the original offence.
Eligibility Does Not Equal Entitlement
- Completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment creates eligibility, not a vested right. The SRB retains discretion and must provide a reasoned order.
- Failure to articulate the reasoning process may lead to the decision being set aside and remanded.
Emphasis on Reasoned Orders
- Boards must avoid mechanical refusals; they must record how each material factor influenced their decision.
- Lack of such reasoning can be challenged successfully under natural-justice principles.
Actionable Takeaways
- Compile a comprehensive dossier of the inmate’s reformative activities, including certificates, educational transcripts and work records.
- Cite relevant Supreme Court precedents (Laxman Naskar, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal, Zahid Hussein) to support the need for a holistic assessment.
- Argue that the SRB’s discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in line with the statutory mandate of Rule 1251 and Rule 1257.
