The Delhi High Court has expressed its “dissatisfaction” with the Delhi government’s Home Department and the Director General of Tihar Prisons after the authorities failed to explain to the court the “continued failure to meaningfully implement the State’s own remission and premature release policies” for convicts.
The court has also taken an adverse view of the state’s “reluctance” to engage with it on these “systemic deficiencies” and subject itself to “judicial scrutiny”.
In an order on October 8, Justice Sanjeev Narula had directed the Director General of Tihar Prisons and Secretary, Home, of the Delhi government to appear personally before the court.
The direction was to secure “accountability”, after the court recorded that it has not seen any progress from prison authorities with respect to directions the Delhi HC had issued earlier this year on standardising the functioning of the Sentence Review Boards (SRBs).
Observing the Boards continued dealing with matters of convicts in a “superficial and perfunctory manner”, the court had sought the officials’ appearance to understand the functioning and decision-making process undertaken by the SRBs for premature release.
What did the court say now
On November 24, the court observed: “… the Court must record its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the State has responded to these proceedings. The concern here is not merely with an individual case but with a recurring pattern: the State’s own policy framework on premature release is neither being consistently followed nor meaningfully implemented, and the reluctance to engage with the Court on these systemic deficiencies is both evident and regrettable.”
It had also observed that on several occasions earlier, when the court had remanded matters of convicts seeking premature release to the SRB for reconsideration in accordance with the applicable policy, it was not complied with and the state’s counsel were unable to explain either the non-adherence to the court’s directions or the “continued mechanical approach of the SRB”.
Story continues below this ad
While the DG (Prisons) and the Secretary (Home) were expected to appear personally on Monday, the officials appeared virtually. They “did not offer any explanation or assistance to address the concerns flagged by the Court,” Justice Narula recorded.
One of the issues that had caught the court’s attention earlier was the evaluation of “propensity of reoffend” for a criminal, which is one of the factors assessed by the SRB to consider early release. The court observed that “in case after case”, the SRB has been returning adverse conclusions for convicts on this aspect.
Justice Narula, flagging the state’s own contradictory stance, recorded, “The submissions (by the state), as advanced on instructions, are internally inconsistent. On one hand, it is suggested that involvement of experts to evaluate the propensity of a convict to re-offend is unnecessary, as this can sufficiently be assessed from the convict’s jail conduct and conduct while on parole. If that be the State’s stance, this Court is unable to comprehend how, in case after case, the SRB has nonetheless returned adverse conclusions on ‘propensity’ despite there being no negative material on record regarding jail conduct or conduct on parole.”
“On the other hand, vague references to ‘ongoing consideration’ are made to seek further time, which cannot justify prolonged non-compliance with specific judicial directions, nor can they explain the continued failure to meaningfully implement the State’s own remission and premature release policies… What is of concern, however, is that… the officers did not offer any substantive explanation for past non-compliance or any concrete roadmap for course correction. This creates an impression of unwillingness to subject the decision-making process to judicial scrutiny.”
Story continues below this ad
Cautioning that such “continued disregard of binding directions cannot be countenanced”, the court recorded that it is stopping short of taking a “harsher view” of the authorities’ inaction, with the expectation that they “will introspect and respond with the seriousness that the subject-matter warrants”.
It also warned that if the authorities continue to fail to comply with the directions, “the Court shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of the material presently available, including, if necessary, directions to secure enforcement of its earlier orders.”
With the court due to hear the matter next on January 22, it has directed the DG (Prisons) and Secretary (Home) to file affidavits in their own capacity, on compliance with court directions on how to proceed with remission and premature releases, the status of implementation of applicable policies, and other details.
The background
On July 1, while deciding on a batch of pleas seeking premature release, including by convict Santosh Kumar Singh, who is facing a life sentence for the 1996 rape and murder of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo, the court had highlighted several lacunae in the current process undertaken by the SRB while deciding applications for early release of prisoners.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Narula had issued a slew of recommendations to better align SRB’s processes and ensure informed decision-making for considering the early release of convicts.
The judge had recommended that the Delhi government and its Department of Prisons “take expeditious steps to institutionalise the involvement of mental health professionals in the premature release process”.
Justice Narula had also batted for introducing “a system for psychological assessment of eligible convicts carried out by qualified clinical psychologists or psychiatrists,” by amending the necessary laws and guidelines.
