Latest news with #DelhiPrisonRules
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
No bar on parole, furlough if appeal pending in SC: HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday clarified that prison authorities are empowered to decide pleas for parole and furlough of inmates even if their appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. It answered a reference received from a single judge that emerged from a challenge to the Delhi Prison Rules filed by several former policemen serving jail terms in the notorious Hashimpura massacre case of Uttar Pradesh. "Thus, the Delhi Prison Rules do not bar consideration of parole and furlough if the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. It is an altogether different question as to whether, in the facts of a specific case, the prison authorities ought to grant parole or furlough if the Supreme Court is seized of the matter either in a special leave petition or in an appeal. The grant or non-grant of parole and furlough on merits would depend on the facts of each case," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma held. The court pointed out that there could be a situation where the apex court may have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict. "The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances, and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough," it noted. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure your family's future! ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "In such cases," HC said, "a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict." The bench emphasised that the mere fact that the authorities could exercise power did not mean parole or furlough ought to be granted as a matter of right, and whether relief could be granted or not was a different issue altogether and depended on the facts of each case. Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release of a convict from jail. While parole is granted to the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. The high court was dealing with a batch of petitions by the convicts whose plea for furlough was not entertained essentially on the ground that their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. "To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a special leave petition or appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations," it highlighted. The court put an end to an earlier interpretation of Rule 1224 of jail that barred parole/furlough being granted if the appeal is pending in the high court. Later, a court ruling extended the bar to also the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court, which was reversed on Tuesday by the bigger bench. The high court sent each of the petitioners back to the bench that was hearing their plea for parole/furlough, noting that a decision must be made in light of the reference answered by it.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Prison authorities can decide on furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in Supreme Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that prison authorities can decide on parole or furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in the Supreme Court. The court was hearing a challenge to Delhi's prison rules by convicts in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre. The convicts had specifically challenged Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, after their requests for furlough were denied by jail authorities earlier. The said provision reads: 'If an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court.' Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, 'The fact that 'Supreme Court' had not been incorporated in Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules is further fortified from the fact that various other provisions in the Prison Rules have referred to 'Supreme Court' in various circumstances, and therefore, non-mentioning of 'Supreme Court' in the Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules cannot be considered as an omission. The intention of the Competent Authority while drafting the Rules is clear from the plain language itself that what was restricted was grant of parole/furlough to convicts whose appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court and not Hon'ble Supreme Court.' The division bench further held that 'since mere pendency of Criminal Appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per Rules by the Competent Authority and the same would be subject to judicial the High Court'. It added that the prison rule provision cannot be interpreted to consider a bar on either the convicts' right to apply for furlough if their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. During the 1987 Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the accused, who were posted for riot control following communal riots, rounded up around 42-45 Muslim men and took them away in a truck. They were later shot, and the bodies were dumped in the Gang Nahar and Hindon canal. Of the 38 who were killed, the bodies of only 11 were identified by families. The remaining bodies were not recovered. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice S Muralidhar, reversed the 2015 acquittal of 16 former members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the Hashimpura massacre case, and held them guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Delhi High Court also set aside a single judge's interpretation in an order in July 2023, which had held that the 'high court' in the above provision implies any appellate court, which would then include the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court. The convicts, whose criminal appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, had challenged the rejection of their furlough request by the prison authorities. The latest court ruling means that the high court can now hear their petitions seeking a review of the prison authorities' rejection. The division bench in its order held, 'To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a Special Leave Petition or Appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations.' 'It cannot be expected that every convict would have to compulsorily approach the Supreme Court for temporary release or emergent release in grave situations, including medical exigencies of the convict, demise in the family, any emergency involving children of the convict, etc… The Delhi Prison Rules are categorical and clear that Rule 1224 bars parole/furlough being granted only if the appeal is pending in the High Court. This bar cannot be extended to the Supreme Court by way of judicial interpretation when the language does not read as such,' the order added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Authorities can decide parole, furlough when appeal pending in SC: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled prison authorities can decide a plea of parole and furlough even when the matter was pending in the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Pratibha M Singh and Amit Sharma observed the Delhi Prison Rules did not bar consideration of parole and furlough if a convict's appeal against the conviction was pending in the Supreme Court. The bench, however, noted whether the relief could be granted or not was a different issue altogether and depended on the facts of each case. Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release of convict from jail. "It is an altogether different question as to whether in the facts of a specific case, the prison authorities ought to grant parole or furlough, if the Supreme Court is seized of the matter either in a Special Leave Petition or in an Appeal. The grant or non grant of the parole and furlough on merit would depend on the facts of each case," the bench said. While parole is granted to the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. There could be a situation in which the Supreme Court might have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict, the bench said. "In such cases," the high court said, "a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict." The bench clarified that the mere fact that the authorities could exercise power did not mean parole or furlough ought to be granted as a matter of right. "The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough." According to the bench, the Delhi Prison Rules couldn't be interpreted to hold that the right of prisoners to apply for parole or furlough was barred when their criminal appeal or special leave petition were pending before the Supreme Court. "Mere pendency of criminal appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per rules by the competent authority and the same would be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court," it said. The power to suspend sentence and grant bail was observed to be distinct from the power to grant parole or furlough. "Thus, while appeals are pending before a higher forum, grant of parole and furlough can be considered as per the applicable prison rules by the jail authorities," it added. The court was hearing a batch of petitoins on the legal issue.
News18
03-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
‘Mental Health, Victim Input Must Be Part Of Premature Release Decisions': Delhi High Court
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.
Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Priyadarshini Mattoo rape-murder: Consider afresh case for premature release of convict facing life sentence, HC tells Sentence Review Board
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider afresh the case for premature release of Santosh Kumar Singh, who is facing a life sentence for the 1996 rape and murder of 25-year old law student Priyadarshini Mattoo. Holding the SRB's decision to deny Singh, along with two other prisoners, premature release as suffering from 'material procedural and legal infirmities', the court highlighted several lacunae in the current process undertaken by the board while deciding applications for early release of prisoners. Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the SRB to convene its next meeting within three months from Tuesday, when the cases of the three petitioners shall be placed for reconsideration 'based on a fresh evaluation of all material and reports,' and a fresh decision shall be rendered within four months. To ensure adequate deliberation and proper application of mind in each case, the HC directed that the SRB shall take up only as many cases as can be reasonably decided in one meeting, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice reiterated in the present judgment. Justice Narula also issued a slew of recommendations to better align SRB's processes and ensure informed decision-making for considering the early release of convicts. Justice Narula recommended that the GNCTD (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) and the Department of Prisons 'take expeditious steps to institutionalise the involvement of mental health professionals in the premature release process'. He added that '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 DPR (Delhi Prison Rules) or by issuing appropriate administrative guidelines'. The order further outlined, '…in appropriate cases, the SRB may also consider calling for independent psychological evaluations, especially where the decision hinges on the convict's likelihood to reoffend. A mere reliance on jail conduct or anecdotal impressions from prison staff does not adequately capture the psychological dimensions of reform and risk.' It also recommended GNCTD to 'evolve a structured protocol for incorporating victim perspectives in the premature release process', noting that 'a clear procedure should be established to locate, contact, and document the views of victims or their families in a sensitive and time bound manner, ensuring their voices are heard without causing re traumatisation'. The order suggested the SRB maintain a written record of whether victims' input was received or solicited, and how such input was weighed in the final decision. 'This would enhance transparency, fortify public confidence in the process, and promote a restorative understanding of justice that respects both the rights of convicts and the dignity of victims,' it added. In four petitions, Singh, along with three other prisoners, had questioned the functioning of the SRB, while seeking directions for their early release. Singh has already served around 29 years and 11 months in jail with remission and 22 years without remission. Eligible for open jail, he is currently permitted to exit the prison complex daily from 8 am to 8 pm to work as a legal consultant with a real estate company. Singh, in a 2023 petition, had sought quashing of the recommendation of the SRB rejecting his premature release in a October 21, 2021 meeting. Thereafter, his case was considered in 2024 and again rejected. Mattoo 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 HC had on October 27, 2006 reversed the decision, holding him guilty of rape and murder and awarded him death penalty. Singh challenged his conviction and death sentence awarded by the HC. In October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld Singh's conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
