‘Mental Health, Victim Input Must Be Part Of Premature Release Decisions': Delhi High Court

News18

03-07-2025

The bench was ruling on petitions challenging the denial of early release to convicts, including one filed by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case
In a judgement concerning the administration of criminal justice and the rights of convicts, the Delhi High Court has recommended sweeping reforms in the framework governing premature release of life convicts.
The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while ruling on a batch of petitions challenging the denial of early release to convicts, including one filed by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the infamous 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case, flagged serious procedural gaps in the functioning of the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
The court held that decisions on premature release must align with constitutional imperatives of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasoned decision-making. It observed that the current system lacks structural integrity and fails to reflect a substantive evaluation of a convict's reformative progress.
Lack of Mental Health Evaluation 'Significant Shortcoming'
The court found that the current framework under the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR) does not mandate formal psychological assessments by mental health professionals, a flaw the Court described as 'significant".
'A convict's transformation into a potentially reformed individual cannot be meaningfully evaluated without examining the underlying psychological trajectory," the court said.
To address this, the court issued a set of binding guidelines recommending that the Delhi government and the department of prisons expeditiously institutionalise the involvement of qualified clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in the SRB process. It directed that psychological evaluations be formally incorporated either through amendments to the DPR or via administrative guidelines.
The court emphasised that while the input of probation officers is valuable, it must be supplemented by expert psychological opinion, particularly in cases where the risk of reoffending is central to the decision.
Inclusion of Victim's Perspective Must Be Standardised
Highlighting the inconsistent implementation of 'victim response" in the current Social Welfare Department format, the court directed the GNCTD to evolve a structured protocol to incorporate victims' perspectives in a sensitive, time-bound, and trauma-informed manner.
Where such input cannot be gathered despite reasonable efforts, the Social Welfare Officer must provide a reasoned explanation, and the SRB must document how any victim response was received and considered.
SRB's Orders Must Be Reasoned and Non-Mechanical
The court was hearing petitions filed by convicts serving life sentences in four separate cases. The petitioners, including Santosh Kumar Singh, had challenged the rejection of their premature release pleas by the SRB, arguing that the decisions were mechanical, lacked application of mind, and failed to account for their conduct during incarceration.
In Singh's case, the court found that although the Social Welfare Department had made a favourable recommendation, the SRB failed to acknowledge or reconcile this with the opposing police report. The impugned decision showed no effort to evaluate Singh's positive post-conviction record, including his advanced educational qualifications and participation in prison rehabilitation programmes.
'Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned decision of the SRB cannot be sustained. The rejection order neither discloses a meaningful application of mind nor does it reflect a reasoned analysis of the reformative efforts made by the Petitioner," the court said.
The court set aside the SRB's orders in three out of the four petitions, including Singh's, and remanded them back for fresh consideration in accordance with the new directions. In one petition, however, the court upheld the SRB's decision.
In doing so, the court stressed that the current functioning of the SRB requires both procedural and substantive overhaul to ensure fairness and transparency.
Sukriti Mishra
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.