The Delhi High Court on Thursday remarked that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) appears to be driven by “public perception” and a “blindfolded” approach when deciding on the premature release of high-profile convicts. Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, while hearing a plea by Santosh Kumar Singh—the life convict in the 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case—assured the petitioner that his case would receive “objective treatment” based on legal distillations rather than social unpopularity.
The court observed that while Singh’s offence was undoubtedly heinous and the victim’s family suffered an irreparable loss, the SRB’s repeated rejection of his plea seemed to overlook the principles of reformation.
“SRB seems to be proceeding on public perception. You are a hugely unpopular person… SRB is looking at things like Lady Justice as she originally was, with blindfolds. Your name doesn’t sound good so I am rejecting it,” Justice Bhambhani remarked orally during the proceedings.
The judge further noted that this was not an isolated incident, stating that the court is seized of several cases where the SRB has rejected release pleas despite convicts spending upwards of 30 or 40 years in custody and receiving recommendations for release.
Santosh Kumar Singh, the son of a former IPS officer, was a law student at Delhi University when he raped and murdered 25-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo in January 1996. Although initially acquitted by a trial court in 1999, the Delhi High Court reversed that decision in 2006, awarding him the death penalty. In 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Singh, argued that his client has now spent 31 years in custody. He highlighted that despite a detailed High Court order in July 2025—which had set aside a previous SRB rejection and noted “elements of reformation” in Singh—the board rejected his case again on November 27, 2025, citing the same grounds of “heinousness.”
Mathur emphasized that Singh has been in an open jail for several years and currently practices law in a trial court during the day, arguing that he poses no danger to society.
Counsel for Mattoo’s brother opposed the application to expedite the hearing, reiterating the gravity of the crime. However, Justice Bhambhani questioned the logic of indefinite confinement if the goal of the justice system includes reformation.
“I understand your sentiments. What he did was unacceptable and the system punished him… The offence was heinous. What do we do? We confine a man like this?” the court asked.
The bench pointed to the 1995 ‘Tandoor’ murder case, noting that convict Sushil Kumar was released after 23 years, and mentioned that the convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case had also been released. “There is something called reformation. There is something called 30 years in custody,” the court stated.
The court was specifically dealing with an application to advance the hearing date from May 18. Recognizing the systemic nature of the issue, the court listed Singh’s petition alongside other similar challenges against SRB rejections for April 20.
“You will be treated objectively. You will be treated in accordance with what I distil,” Justice Bhambhani assured the petitioner.
