The Delhi High Court has directed the immediate release of two life-term convicts in separate 1990s rape cases, ruling that their sustained good behavior during incarceration cannot be overlooked in favor of unverified fears about public safety. Setting aside earlier decisions by the Sentence Review Board and the Home Department of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the court characterized the denial of their early release petitions as arbitrary and a violation of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani referenced Anton Chekhov’s short story “The Bet” to reflect on the psychological toll of long-term imprisonment, noting that while capital punishment takes a life instantly, lifelong confinement extracts it gradually over time. The court observed that the static gravity of an original offense and sentence length should not permanently disqualify an inmate from early release, as doing so would render premature release impossible for any life convict.
Custody Details and Prior Rejections
The two petitioners had served extended prison sentences following their convictions for crimes committed decades ago. The first convict, sentenced to life imprisonment for an offense committed in 1992, had completed more than 31 years behind bars without remission as of January 3, 2026, a total exceeding 40 years when including earned remission. The second inmate, convicted for a 1997 crime, had completed 15 years of actual imprisonment as of October 6, 2025, amounting to over 19 years with remission.
Both men had approached the court after the Sentence Review Board and the Home Department turned down their pleas for early release. The high court noted that the review board’s concern that the men were likely to re-offend lacked backing from any objective psychological or behavioral evaluation, relying instead on generic assumptions regarding age and unsupported witness apprehensions.
Legal Arguments and Statutory Framework
During court proceedings, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the bench, outlined the legal criteria governing early release applications. She emphasized that authorities must assess whether an inmate has lost the inclination to commit crimes based on prison conduct, the feasibility of their societal rehabilitation, and their family’s socio-economic condition.
Counsel representing the prisoners challenged the reasoning used by the review board. Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran argued that the board relied on vague generalities, such as labeling the offenses as desperation crimes that shake societal confidence, rather than adhering to established legal guidelines. Advocate Sarthak Maggon submitted that the heinous nature of an original crime cannot serve as a reliable predictor of a convict’s future post-release conduct.
State Opposition and Court Conclusions
Opposing the petitions, Additional Standing Counsels Sanjeev Bhandari and Amol Sinha argued on behalf of the state that the review board had properly evaluated all relevant circumstances without relying on a rigid formula. State representatives maintained that the brutal nature of the crimes had shocked the collective conscience of society and that granting release solely due to length of custody would undermine public interest.
Rejecting the state’s contentions, the high court held that assessments for early release must focus primarily on post-conviction conduct, likelihood of re-offending, utility of continued detention, and family background rather than static historical facts. Lacking any contemporary evidence demonstrating bad conduct in prison, the court ordered that both convicts be set at liberty.
