The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man convicted for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight in 1993 by allowing his petition challenging the denial of premature release. The bench, led by Justice Sanjeev Narula, set aside the decision of the Sentence Review Board, noting that the reasoning provided for rejecting the application failed to meet the standards required of an executive authority. The Court observed that the convict’s behavior during almost eighteen years of actual imprisonment displayed genuine signs of reformation, with no record of misconduct while in jail.
Hari Singh, the individual convicted, had been sentenced under Section 4 of the Anti-Hijacking Act as well as several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had handed down a sentence of life imprisonment in 2001, a decision later affirmed by the High Court in 2011. His appeal was not pursued further before the Supreme Court, and he remained in custody thereafter. Through years of incarceration, Singh remained eligible for consideration for premature release; though his name was consistently sent to the Sentence Review Board, every recommendation had been denied, with the rejections justified solely on the gravity of the offence.
At the time of review, Singh had served more than seventeen years of actual prison time and approximately twenty-two and a half years in total, including remission. The High Court evaluated his conduct over this period, including participation in prison work, and found no adverse incidents. The Court concluded that such an extended period of exemplary behavior had not been properly given weight by the authorities, which had relied exclusively on the seriousness of the crime without considering other criteria ordinarily employed in such assessments.
Justice Narula emphasised that the executive process of granting premature release demands reasoned justification, especially in situations where denial is based on a single aspect. The Court found that the reasoning offered by the Review Board lacked depth and failed to demonstrate a holistic evaluation of all factors, such as a prisoner’s reform, conduct, and rehabilitation potential. This shortcoming rendered the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable.
Given these findings, the High Court remanded the matter to the Sentence Review Board for fresh consideration. It directed that the Board revisit the application with adequate scrutiny and assess Singh’s eligibility afresh within eight weeks, taking into account the full spectrum of relevant factors. The implication of this order is that Singh’s case must now be deliberated with a comprehensive analysis rather than dismissed summarily on account of the gravity of his historic offence.
The order reflects a recognition that long-term incarceration must be balanced with observed reformation, and that executive decision-making in such contexts must be transparent and well reasoned. In granting this relief, the Court did not overturn the conviction or commute the sentence—it simply mandated a reexamination of a denial where the original order was procedurally deficient. The decision underscores the need for proportionality and fairness in decisions related to premature release, even when the underlying offence is serious and historically consequential.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.