Gravity of offense cannot be the sole ground for denying premature release where post-conviction conduct demonstrates reformation.

The Petitioner was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC on 21.12.2005 for the rape of a 3.5-year-old child and sentenced to life imprisonment

His conviction was upheld by the High Court in 2010 and the Supreme Court subsequently

As of July 2025, the Petitioner had completed over 22 years of actual imprisonment and over 28 years including remissions

Between 2016 and 2024, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejected his application for premature release ten times, primarily citing the heinous nature of the offence, the age of the victim, and opposition from the police

Conversely, the Petitioner demonstrated exemplary conduct, earning yoga certificates, working in various prison roles, and maintaining an unblemished record during 19 furloughs and 4 paroles

Crucially, the Petitioner was transferred to a Semi-Open Jail in 2017 and recommended for an Open Jail in 2019, reflecting the prison authorities' trust in his reformation

The court primarily applied the Remission Policy, 2004 and the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR), 2018 (specifically Rules 1253, 1257, 1321, and 1325)

It relied on State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), establishing that the policy at the time of conviction applies unless a subsequent policy is more liberal

The court further integrated the principles from Joseph v. State of Kerala (2023), which emphasized that reformative potential must outweigh past crimes in remission assessments

Under Rule 1257(c) of the DPR 2018, the SRB cannot decline premature release solely because the police have not recommended it

Article 21 of the Constitution was invoked regarding the right to liberty when state action becomes arbitrary

The court observed that the SRB adopted a mechanical and "copy-paste" approach, failing to issue reasoned orders—a violation of the "third pillar of natural justice"

The court reasoned that while the gravity of the offence is a threshold factor for eligibility (requiring 14 years of actual service), it cannot serve as a permanent bar to remission if the convict has demonstrated reformation

The court found that the Petitioner’s eligibility and transfer to Semi-Open and Open Jails (under Rules 1321-1326) constituted "objective evidence" of a loss of propensity to commit crime

The court criticized the SRB for ignoring positive reports from the Social Welfare Department and the Chief Probation Officer while blindly following the Delhi Police's opposition

The court determined that continuing the Petitioner’s incarceration after 22 years of actual service, despite an unblemished conduct record, was irrational and contrary to the reformative goals of modern penology

It concluded that the Petitioner had met all requisite parameters for integration into society

The court quashed the rejection orders and directed the Jail Superintendent to release the Petitioner forthwith, provided he is not required in any other proceedings

The Writ Petition was allowed