It has to be definitely taken definitely most seriously by one and all when none other than Delhi High Court which is one of the most esteemed High Courts in India dares to step forward and in a very path breaking move while taking a most righteous recourse in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vikram Yadav vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi in W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1394/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:4946 that was reserved on 17.05.2025 and then finally pronounced on 11.06.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to state in no uncertain terms that punishment should end during the lifetime of a convict, adding that the release of prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of their term was a significant part of the ancient Hindu jurisprudence.

For first time in my life, I must say that all Judges not only in India but all over the world must read each and every line of this most progressive, pragmatic and pertinent judgment for gaining an insight into how Judges should rule and how sentence of jail in life till death must be desisted always no matter how serious the crime may be! No denying or disputing it!

Before stating anything else, this most brilliant, bold, brief and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia sets the ball in motion by first and foremost pointing out like Preamble to Constitution that:
Kautilya’s Arthshastra makes references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing that later came to be known as remission. Release of convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of the term of imprisonment imposed on them was significant part of the ancient Hindu jurisprudence. Kautilya advocated for periodic exercise of premature release of prisoners, who were young or very old or ailing and those who maintained good conduct in prison. The Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra makes reference to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years.

The Ist separate edict at Dhauli refers to an address by king Asoka to his judicial officers in the capital, calling them upon to ensure that not a single innocent is subjected to unnecessary pain or imprisonment. There existed a conscious and consistent thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in order to achieve larger goal of peace in society by minimization of crime and criminogenic tendencies. Later, thinkers across globe nurtured the idea that reformatory policies are more productive than deterrent and retributory approach to crime and criminal. To paraphrase and quote the famous Irish author and poet Oscar Wilde: Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

And thoughts of Fyodor Dostoevsky (Crime and Punishment): Guilt, conscience, and the possibility of moral rebirth reside in every human being. Every darkness carries a hope for light, and every light holds a memory of darkness. The track connecting this duality of darkness and light is the course track of reformative sentencing. Every wrong deserves a consequence; but every consequence must have a limit, lest it became wrong in itself. The present decision is rooted in this philosophy.

At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment puts forth in para 1 while laying the background of this leading case that:
The petitioner, having suffered incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission, consequent upon his conviction in cases FIR No.611/2001 and FIR No.261/2001 of PS Badarpur and PS Seemapuri respectively for offences under Sections 302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC, for which he was awarded imprisonment for life (and different terms, which were to run concurrently) by the Trial Court and upheld by a Division Bench of this court, seeks premature release. Upon service of notice, the respondent State entered appearance through learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC), who filed multiple status reports at different stages of arguments before predecessor benches. On behalf of petitioner also, written submissions and documents at different stages were filed. With consent of both sides, I heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for State in special hearing organised for a few cases on a Saturday.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 stating that:
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing his premature release from prison on the basis of policy framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 2004, as he has already undergone prison sentence for a period more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission. Earlier, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) took up petitioner’s case for premature release on multiple occasions and rejected the same on 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021, 21.10.2021 and 30.06.2023.

Thereafter, the petitioner along with others challenged the decision dated 30.06.2023 of SRB through a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(CRL) 1268/2024 before this court, and this court held that case of the petitioner has to be governed by the policy of 2004 so the respondent State was directed to consider case of the petitioners of that writ petition (which included the present petitioner) afresh qua their premature release.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order of this court, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition, bearing SLP (Criminal) No.6839/2024, which was disposed of as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before this court. Hence, the present petition.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 15 that:
To recapitulate in the present case, the premature release has been declined to the petitioner on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the crime (abduction for ransom and murder); jumping of parole and re-arrest in two other criminal cases, showing non reformative attitude; strong objection by police; and possibility of committing crime again. It would be apposite to examine each of these grounds individually.

Most significantly, most sagaciously, most courageously and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone and heartbeat of this notable judgment postulating that:
Of course, abduction for ransom, followed by murder is indeed gruesome and needs to be dealt with sternly. But then, one also cannot ignore that the said crime took place way back in the year 2001 and the learned trial court, by way of detailed order on sentence found it not a case which would call for imposing death penalty, so life imprisonment was imposed. As mentioned above, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission.

Not that due to passage of time, the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. The wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab. Time heals all wounds.

This is the only way to fathom in order to ensure purposive application of the reformatory tool of premature release, otherwise no convict would be ever granted an opportunity to reform himself. For, life imprisonment, by its very nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict.

Equally significant is that the Bench lays bare in para 17 pointing out that, Then comes jumping of parole by the petitioner and his re-arrest in two more criminal cases. Even that occurred way back in the year 2015. As mentioned above, citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied premature release to the petitioner. Some point of time has to be there, when aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a decade since the petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter, subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by the jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands acquitted in those two cases.

Most fittingly, the Bench hastens to add in para 18 holding that:
As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again, merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit crime has to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner as reflected from cogent material. The petitioner has filed, with index dated 24.02.2025, six Commendation Certificates issued by the jail and other authorities to him.

Those certificates include Certificates of Appreciation for his good work and performance on the occasions of Republic Day of the years 2021 and 2022; Participation Certificate in the foundation course of yoga science, conducted under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India; Certificate of Appreciation for hard work and efforts in assisting the jail administration in fight against Covid pandemic; Certificate of learning computer science; and Certificate issued by Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Smriti for participation in painting competition.

Speaking specifically about conduct of the petitioner during Covid pandemic, according to the Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021 issued by the jail authorities, the petitioner remained associated in cleaning and timely sanitization of jail, ensuring availability and distribution of face masks, sanitizers, hands wash, clean clothes and other daily utility items amongst other inmates; and assisting the jail administration by way of regular counselling of newly admitted prisoners during Covid pandemic. According to the said Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner had done an extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona, due to which the jail administration succeeded in keeping Corona free the jail no.2, even while admitting and quarantining more than 8200 newly admitted prisoners.

These certificates, coupled with the fact that across a period of time, the petitioner was released on parole and furlough more than once show a substantial reformative growth of the petitioner, which is a vital indicator of reduced propensity to commit crime again. For, it shows a realisation in the petitioner that he can live life of appreciation by staying away from crime.

Notably, the Bench notes in para 19 that:
As regards the said Commendation Certificates, I am unable to agree with the contention of learned ASC that the same only make the prisoner eligible for consideration and cannot be a ground to grant premature release. The policy of 2004, extracted above makes it clear that irrespective of such certificates, every convicted prisoner undergoing life sentence has to be considered for premature release after serving sentence of 14 years without remissions. So far as eligibility or entitlement to be considered for premature release is concerned, the only criteria is that the convicted prisoner must be the one facing a life imprisonment sentence, who has served 14 years of actual imprisonment. The Commendation Certificates, as noted above are guiding tools for SRB in exercise of discretion to grant premature release.

Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 20 that:
As regards the ‘strong objection’ by police to allow the petitioner premature release, no reasonable grounds of objection have been spelt out. However, in this regard, the police also has to shift their paradigm from oppressive punitive approach to reformatory approach. Not everything propounded for an accused or a convict has to be opposed by police as a matter of routine.

Resultantly, the Bench deems it perfectly in order to hold in para 21 that:
In the overall circumstances of this case, I have no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large.

It would be instructive to note that while taking a most balanced stand, the Bench notes in para 22 observing that:
I have also deliberated upon the submission of learned ASC that in case the impugned decision (or indecision) of SRB is found not sustainable, the matter be remanded for fresh consideration in a time bound manner in the light of parameters to be laid down by this court. As mentioned above, the impugned decision of denial of premature release to the petitioner suffers from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach to such a sensitive issue. But for the time being, instead of straightaway directing premature release of the petitioner, it is considered appropriate that the SRB be given a chance to re-examine the entire issue in the light of above discussion.

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then draws the curtains of this notable judgment by directing and holding in para 23 that:
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider afresh case of the petitioner for premature release in cases FIR No.611/2001 of PS Badarpur and FIR No.261/2001 of PS Seemapuri for offences under Section 302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC in accordance with the policy of the year 2004 and the parameters laid down and discussed above; the fresh consideration of case of the petitioner shall be concluded within four weeks and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

It is specifically directed that in case the SRB does not find it to be a fit case to grant premature release to the petitioner, the decision of SRB shall be worded in a manner that one can decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB. Lastly, it is also expected that the competent authority shall deliberate upon the composition of SRB and reconstitute the same, and shall also further fine tune the policy of 2004 on the lines discussed above.

All told, I am falling just absolutely short of adequate words to express my feeling of paramount enlightenment after having a cursory glance of this most wonderful judgment which not only Judges but also each and every person in this world must read patiently to get a sense of how a good Judge should deliver judgments in such cases like the present one! It merits just no reiteration that the growing abject trend of condemning a prisoner to prison for entire life on one pretext or the other cannot be ever justified by any person in his/her right senses.

It also highlighted some inherent weaknesses in the functioning of the Sentence Review Board which had earlier rejected the plea as stated herein aforesaid which needs to be addressed at the earliest! Of course, what all has been directed by the Delhi High Court in this leading case so very commendably must be fully, firmly and finally implemented at the earliest which it so richly deserves also! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh