Supreme Court pulls up Delhi Government for ignoring majority rule in SRB decisions.
SUPREME COURT SLAMS DELHI GOVERNMENT OVER REMISSION CASE
Case in NewsThe Supreme Court of India slams Delhi Government over mishandling of Sentence Review Board and premature release case . |
Case Overview
Case Name – Mohd. Arif vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
In a recent case , the Supreme Court of India condemned the Delhi government for mishandling the premature release plea of a life convict . The bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious concerns over how the Sentence Review Board (SRB) dealt with the matter by violating procedural norms under the Delhi Prison Rules. The Supreme Court pointed to inconsistencies in affidavits and delayed action despite earlier directions .
Key Aspects
- The release of the convict plea was deferred several times without a valid reason.
- The Delhi government failed to follow Rule 1257(b) of Delhi Prison Rules which permits majority decisions.
- False statements were made to the Supreme Court relating to the recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor.
- Affidavits given by officers were termed “misleading” by the bench.
- Officers couldn’t explain what the majority opinion in the SRB meeting was.
Legal Insights
- Delhi Prison Rules, Rule 1257(b) mandates that in absence of consensus the majority view shall prevail.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was invoked due to misleading affidavits .
- The right to premature release is part of the remission policy and not mere discretion.
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India ordered the Delhi government to reconvene the Sentence Review Board and place its outcome on record by 9th May , 2025. The Supreme Court stressed that remission policy decisions must show rule based majority outcomes and not political influence.
Source
Read also –SC CLARIFIES STAND ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN FILICIDE CASE
