Rehabilitation and long-term good conduct outweigh the gravity of TADA offences for premature release consideration.

The petitioner, Rashid Khan, was convicted on August 31, 2001, for his role as the "mastermind" behind the 1993 Bowbazar bomb blast in Kolkata under the TADA Act, Explosive Substances Act, and IPC.

He has remained in judicial custody since March 3, 1993, totaling over 33 years of incarceration.

In 2015, the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) recommended his premature release based on good conduct and old age, but the order was stalled due to a Supreme Court interim stay in Union of India v. V. Sriharan.

Following subsequent legal developments and the release of a co-convict, Pannalal Jaysoara, the SSRB reversed its stance in 2017 and 2018, rejecting the petitioner’s release citing the gravity of the offense and adverse police reports.

The petitioner challenged these rejections, seeking remission and immediate release.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter given that the conviction and incarceration occurred in West Bengal.

2. Whether the gravity of a TADA offense permanently precludes a convict from the benefit of premature release/remission after three decades of incarceration.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release based on the reformative theory of punishment and parity with co-accused.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding writ jurisdiction and Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. concerning the power to remit sentences.

It relied on Union of India v. V. Sriharan, which clarified that for Central Acts like TADA, the "appropriate government" for remission is the Central Government.

The Court emphasized the reformative theory of punishment expressed in State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and Maru Ram v. Union of India.

It further utilized the five-point test for remission established in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, which considers factors such as the potentiality for committing future crimes and the socio-economic condition of the convict.

The Court dismissed the Respondents' jurisdictional objections, noting that since TADA is a Central Act, the Union of India’s involvement as the deciding authority in New Delhi provided a sufficient nexus for cause of action.

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that while the 1993 blast was a "gruesome" act affecting society, the remission policy does not categorically exclude TADA convicts from consideration.

The Court highlighted that the SSRB had originally recommended release in 2015, indicating that the later rejections were inconsistent and lacked new factual basis.

Applying the Laxman Naskar factors, the Court found that the petitioner, now 77 years old and suffering from multiple chronic ailments (diabetes, hypertension, cataracts), had "lost potentiality" for committing crimes.

His conduct was described as "very very good" over 26 years, and he had successfully completed 93 days of parole without police escort.

The Court also noted the principle of parity, as a co-convict in the same trial had already been released.

The Court quashed the SSRB’s rejection orders and held that the circumstances justified remission under a reformative approach.

The petition was allowed, and the Court directed that Rashid Khan be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.