Priyadarshini Mattoo case: HC sets aside order rejecting convict's early release

New Delhi, Jul 1 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside the decision refusing the premature release of the convict serving life term for the rape and murder of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in 1996, saying the convict's reformative conduct was not considered.

The high court said it found an element of reformation in convict Santosh Kumar Singh and referred the matter back to the sentence review board (SRB) to consider afresh his plea for premature release.

"No effort was made to evaluate the petitioner's (Singh) demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes," Justice Sanjeev Narula said in an 82-page judgment.

The court noted Singh was presently lodged in an 'open prison' which entitles him to exit the jail complex daily between 8 am and 8 pm for gainful employment.

The placement in such a prison category is a reflection of the "positive reformative conduct" of the convict and this was a critical indicator of reform which the SRB has failed to even acknowledge, let alone evaluate, it said.

The court said the SRB decision to reject Singh's premature release plea cannot be sustained as the rejection order neither discloses a meaningful application of mind nor reflects a reasoned analysis of the reformative efforts made by him.

The board's reliance on the generic assertion that jail conduct is not a reliable indicator of post-release behaviour is misplaced, it said.

The court passed a common order in four separate cases which raised fundamental questions relating to the functioning of the SRB of the Delhi government, the executive body tasked with deciding whether convicts serving life sentences merit premature release. The factual distinctions were dealt with separately by the court in each of the cases.

The petitioners, all life convicts, assailed the rejection of their claims for premature release by the SRB, contending that the impugned decisions as well as its approval by the Lieutenant Governor were unreasoned, mechanical and insensitive to their post-conviction conduct.

The court said in these cases, despite a prima facie reformative conduct and intent exhibited by the convicts, correlation to such material considerations is conspicuously absent.

"Several petitioners have demonstrable indicators of reformation, be they sustained placement in open or semi-open prisons, commendations earned during incarceration, voluntary participation in social and vocational initiatives or positive assessments from prison authorities. Yet, the impugned rejections do not consider these factors in a substantive manner," it said.

While deciding Singh's case, the court said the board's holding that the convict's conduct in jail was not an indicator of what they may do outside "not only effectively nullifies the probative value of the convict's post-conviction conduct and reformative efforts" but also reflects a "patently erroneous and arbitrary approach" that undermines the very purpose of the remission policies.

Justice Narula said Singh became eligible for premature release after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remission.

In the minutes of the SRB meetings of 2024, the board correctly acknowledged that the 2004 policy was applicable, as it was in force on the date of his conviction.

The minutes also recorded that Singh had undergone 21 years, 2 months and 12 days of actual incarceration, and 28 years, 6 months and 27 days with remission which surpasses the eligibility threshold, it noted.

The court also held as "deeply problematic" the reasoning given by the SRB. It said while the heinousness of the offence and the views of the investigating agencies are undoubtedly relevant, they cannot operate to the exclusion of other equally material considerations such as post-conviction conduct, demonstrated reform, educational and vocational achievements and institutional assessment through placement in open prisons.

The court also framed certain guidelines to be followed by the SRB while considering prisoners' pleas.

It said while considering the premature release, the SRB should also take into account the victim's perspectives which are essential for a comprehensive appraisal of the societal impact of early release, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes.

It recommended that the Delhi government and the Department of Prisons take expeditious steps to institutionalise the involvement of mental health professionals in the premature release process.

A system for psychological assessment of eligible convicts, carried out by qualified clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, should be introduced either by amending the existing framework under the Delhi Prison Rules or by issuing appropriate administrative guidelines, the court said.

Singh, in his 2023 petition, sought quashing of the recommendation of the SRB rejecting his premature release in the October 21, 2021 meeting. Thereafter, his case was considered in a 2024 meeting and again rejected.

Mattoo, 25, was raped and murdered in January 1996. Singh, a law student of Delhi University, was acquitted by the trial court in the case on December 3, 1999, but the Delhi High Court had on October 27, 2006 reversed the decision, holding him guilty of rape and murder and awarded him death penalty.

Singh, the son of a former IPS officer, challenged his conviction and death sentence awarded by the high court.

In October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld Singh's conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. PTI SKV SKV KSS KSS