Introduction:
The case of Rajab Ali v. State & Another came before the Delhi High Court, presenting a crucial question at the intersection of criminal justice, constitutional rights, and the philosophy of punishment—whether the gravity of an offence alone can justify the continued incarceration of a convict who has demonstrably reformed over time. The matter was adjudicated by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who examined the legality of repeated rejections of premature release by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
The petitioner, Rajab Ali, had been convicted in 2005 in a rape case and sentenced to life imprisonment. By the time of the present petition, he had undergone more than 22 years of actual imprisonment, and approximately 28 years including remission. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria under the applicable remission policies and maintaining a commendable conduct record, his plea for premature release had been rejected repeatedly—ten times in total—primarily on the ground of the heinous nature of the offence.
At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner was lodged in a Semi-Open Prison in Tihar Central Jail, where he was engaged in work as a cleaner. His record reflected multiple paroles and furloughs, all of which were availed without any adverse incident. The case thus raised a fundamental issue: whether the criminal justice system should remain anchored in retribution or evolve towards reformation and reintegration.
The High Court was called upon to examine whether the SRB’s repeated reliance on the gravity of the offence, without adequately considering the petitioner’s reformation and conduct, was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Rajab Ali, through his counsel, advanced a strong case grounded in the principles of reformative justice, constitutional rights, and administrative fairness.
At the outset, the petitioner contended that he had undergone more than two decades of actual imprisonment and had fully satisfied the eligibility criteria for premature release under the applicable remission policies, including the Remission Policy, 2004 and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. He argued that continued incarceration beyond this period, despite fulfilling all conditions, was unjustified.
A key aspect of the petitioner’s argument was his exemplary conduct during incarceration. He submitted that his Nominal Roll consistently reflected good behavior, discipline, and diligence. He had earned commendations for his work and had been entrusted with responsibilities in the Semi-Open Prison, which itself indicated a high degree of trust and reformation.
The petitioner further highlighted that he had been granted parole on three occasions, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as furlough on 22 occasions. Importantly, he had never misused these opportunities, nor had there been any adverse report regarding his conduct during these periods. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrated his readiness to reintegrate into society.
The petitioner argued that the repeated rejection of his remission plea by the SRB was arbitrary, as it was based solely on the nature and gravity of the offence, without considering his reformation and conduct. He contended that such an approach was contrary to the principles laid down in various judicial precedents, which require a balanced assessment of both the offence and the subsequent conduct of the convict.
It was further submitted that the SRB had failed to apply its mind independently and had merely reiterated the same reasons in each rejection order. The petitioner argued that this mechanical approach violated principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
The petitioner also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to be considered for remission in a fair and reasonable manner. He contended that continued detention despite clear evidence of reformation amounted to a violation of this fundamental right.
In essence, the petitioner’s case was built on the premise that punishment must evolve from retribution to reformation, and that the justice system must recognize and reward genuine efforts at rehabilitation.
Arguments by the Respondents (State and Sentence Review Board):
The respondents, representing the State and the Sentence Review Board, opposed the petitioner’s plea by emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the concerns of public safety.
At the outset, the respondents argued that the petitioner had been convicted of a grave and heinous offence, and that the nature of the crime warranted continued incarceration. They contended that the gravity and perversity of the offence were relevant considerations in deciding remission applications.
The respondents also pointed out that there was strong opposition from the police authorities regarding the petitioner’s release. It was argued that releasing a person convicted of such an offence could pose a threat to society and undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The State further submitted that the SRB had considered all relevant factors, including the petitioner’s age, conduct, and the nature of the offence, before rejecting his plea. It was contended that the Board’s decision was within its discretion and should not be interfered with by the Court.
The respondents also argued that remission is not a matter of right but a privilege, and that the petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of entitlement. They maintained that the decision to grant or deny remission must be taken in the interest of justice and public safety.
Additionally, the respondents emphasized that the repeated rejections were based on consistent reasoning, reflecting the seriousness of the offence rather than arbitrariness.
However, the respondents did not effectively counter the petitioner’s argument regarding his exemplary conduct and the absence of any adverse material indicating a risk of reoffending.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court delivered a comprehensive and principled judgment, allowing the petition and directing the premature release of the petitioner.
At the outset, the Court observed that the repeated rejection of the petitioner’s remission plea was based on identical grounds, primarily the heinousness and gravity of the offence. The Court held that such repetitive reasoning, without considering the petitioner’s reformation and conduct, was arbitrary and contrary to established principles.
The Court emphasized that while the nature of the offence is a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole basis for denying remission. It must be weighed against the subsequent conduct of the convict and the extent of reformation achieved.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s Nominal Roll reflected exemplary conduct, including commendations and consistent discipline. It observed that his placement in a Semi-Open Prison since 2017 was a clear indication of his reformed character and the trust reposed in him by the authorities.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had availed parole and furlough on multiple occasions without any adverse incident, demonstrating his ability to reintegrate into society.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had undergone more than 22 years of actual imprisonment and 28 years including remission, with no adverse remarks. It held that this “overwhelming record” established that the petitioner had fully reformed and posed no risk of reoffending.
In a significant observation, the Court held that continued detention of the petitioner, despite fulfilling all criteria for remission, violated his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also criticized the SRB for its mechanical approach, noting that it had failed to apply its mind to the petitioner’s individual circumstances and had merely reiterated the same grounds for rejection.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition and directed the premature release of the petitioner, holding that he was a “totally reformed person” fit to return to society.