Citing Anton Chekhov on life imprisonment, Delhi High Court releases 2 convicts

The August 11 order added, “Sustained good conduct in custody cannot be discounted in the absence of contemporary evidence to the contrary, and any assessment of propensity to re‑offend must be based on antecedents and conduct in jail, rather than on baseless apprehensions of victims or witnesses or generic references to age.”

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani observed that the sentence review board ‘repeatedly recycled stereotyped reasoning, rendering their decisions arbitrary.’

One of the convicts had committed the crime in 1992 and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. According to this plea, he had undergone over 31 years of imprisonment, excluding the period of remission, as on January 3, 2026. If including remission, his custody would extend beyond 40 years, he added.

The other convict was punished for the crime in 1997 and has been serving life imprisonment. His plea argued that as of October 6, 2025, he had spent 15 years behind bars, excluding the period of remission. Including the remission period would make his time in jail over 19 years.

While the men sought early release on the grounds of good conduct, etc, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) and later the Home Department of the Government of the National Capital rejected their pleas.

‘Arbitrary’ rejection

The judgment noted that while deciding a plea for early release, the focus must be on “post‑conviction conduct, propensity to re‑offend, purpose and usefulness of continued confinement, and the socio‑economic condition of the convict’s family.”

The high court said, “The gravity of the original offence and the length of the sentence imposed are static, historical facts which, by themselves, are not relevant considerations while deciding a plea for early release, and that to treat them as dispositive of the plea for early release would mean that no life convict would ever qualify for early release.”

The ruling observed that the SRB’s fear that the convicts would “likely” commit a crime again was not supported by any “psychological” or “behavioural” assessment or objective material. Accordingly, calling the SRB’s decision “arbitrary” and in violation of Article 21 (protection of life and liberty), the high court set aside the orders that had rejected the plea of the convicts and directed that they must be released from custody.

‘No straight jacket formula’

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, who was appointed as amicus curiae by the high court to assist in case, submitted that the legal guidelines set out a list of factors to be considered for a case of early release, including “whether the convict has lost the propensity to commit crime in light of his overall conduct in prison, the possibility of his rehabilitation as a useful member of society, and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.”

Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran, appearing for one of the convicts, argued that the order passed by the SRB incorrectly relied on general expressions like “desperation crime,” “shakes the confidence of the society,” and “not be in the interest of the society at large,” without following the structured criteria of the law and the prior directions passed by the high court.

Advocate Sarthak Maggon, appearing for the other convict, argued that the reasons given for rejecting the plea, like the nature, gravity, heinousness and perversity of the offence, etc, could not determine the post-release conduct of the convict.

Additional standing counsels Sanjeev Bhandari and Amol Sinha, appearing for the state, argued that while rejecting the pleas for early release, the SRB had considered all relevant factors and that no “straight-jacket formula” can be applied either by the SRB or by this court while considering cases for early release since each case is required to be evaluated on its own facts.

According to the counsel, the acts committed by the convicts were “barbaric” and “reflect complete disregard for human dignity and societal norms, and crimes of such nature shock the collective conscience of the society and create a deep sense of fear among citizens.” The counsel also contended that granting remission to the convicts only because they were imprisoned for a long time would hurt the society at large.