New Delhi, Apr 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised the Delhi Government for its handling of a life convict's petition seeking permanent remission, calling the situation a “sorry state of affairs.”

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the manner in which the Delhi Government was dealing with applications for premature release raised serious concerns. “Perhaps a deeper probe is required in this case about the manner in which the court proceedings were handled by the Delhi Government, and the manner in which prayers for premature release are being dealt with,” the Court noted.

The convict’s plea for premature release was initially considered by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) in September 2024 but was deferred. On November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court directed that the case be reconsidered before December 9.

However, on December 9, the Court was informed that the SRB met on December 8, but failed to reach a consensus.

According to Rule 1257(b) of the Delhi Prison Rules, in the absence of a unanimous decision, the majority view must prevail. Despite this, the minutes of the meeting failed to indicate what the majority view was.

When questioned, two officers present at the meeting and also in court were unable to clarify whether the majority supported or opposed the prisoner’s release.

The Court also pointed out that the Delhi Government had earlier assured that the case would be considered in the December 10 meeting, which evidently did not happen as promised.

Subsequently, the Delhi Government held two meetings in quick succession and ultimately rejected the convict’s plea. Expressing surprise, the Court remarked, “We have never seen such urgency on the part of Delhi Government in dealing with cases of premature release.”

Faced with these sharp observations, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the State, assured the Court, on instructions from the attending officers, that the SRB would be reconvened immediately for a fresh decision.

The bench directed the State to place the outcome of this meeting on record by May 9, 2025.

The issue escalated further when, on February 7, 2025, the Delhi Government claimed that SRB’s recommendations had been placed before the Lieutenant Governor on February 2. However, on March 7, the Court found this to be false based on an affidavit from the Superintendent of Prisons, which confirmed that no decision had been reached in the December 10 meeting.

Consequently, the Court issued a notice to the Secretary of Delhi’s Home Department asking why action, including under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated.

On March 28, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department submitted that what was sent to the LG was not a recommendation but a note on the deferral. The Court said this was misleading, and only after a contempt notice was issued did the State hastily reject the petition.

On April 15, the Court rejected the affidavit submitted by Principal Secretary A. Anbarasu, who claimed the Court misunderstood the SRB’s February 2 “recommendation.”

Justice Oka responded sternly: “We are not children dealing with a premature release case for the first time. A recommendation either supports or opposes release not an inability to reach a decision.”

Terming the affidavit “most objectionable,” the Court directed Anbarasu to appear in person on April 21.

During the April 21 hearing, the bench repeatedly sought clarity on the majority opinion within the SRB.

Officers present could only confirm that the SRB Chairman, Delhi’s Home Minister, had opposed the plea, but failed to explain the overall board's stance.

Justice Oka emphasised that a decision must be taken by the majority and added, “We are not against you, but we have held that when there is a policy, it is the right of a detenue to be considered for remission. If your rules say the decision should be by majority, then members must not be deterred.

Just because the Minister or police oppose, you can’t say there's no consensus. It paints a very bad picture.”

The case to continue, with further developments expected by May 9.

UNI/SNG/ GNK