Synopsis

The petitioner, a 77‑year‑old TADA convict, had been in judicial custody since 03.03.1993 (over 33 years) for his role in the Bowbazar bomb blast in Kolkata. The State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) had recommended his premature release in 2015, but due to legal proceedings regarding the appropriate government’s jurisdiction (Union of India v. V. Sriharan), the recommendation was not acted upon. Subsequently, the SSRB rejected his case in 2017 and 2018. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, granting remission and ordering his immediate release. The court held that: (i) the reformative approach to punishment must prevail over retribution; (ii) the petitioner’s impeccable conduct during incarceration, advanced age (77 years), medical ailments, and the fact that a co‑accused had already been released, justified remission; (iii) the gravity of the offence alone cannot override all other factors favouring release.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Writ petition (criminal) no. 1041 of 2021

Md. rashid khan (petitioner) vs. Union of india & anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice neena bansal krishna

Core Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432, 433, 433A, 435 – Remission of sentence – Premature release – TADA convict – Reformative theory of punishment – Laxman Naskar factors – Judicial review of remission decisions.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 5, 2026
Case No.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 1041 of 2021
Citation: 2026:DHC:5100

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432 (power to suspend or remit sentences), 433 (power to commute sentences), 433A (restriction on remission in certain cases), 435 (State Government to act after consultation with Central Government in certain cases)

• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) – Sections 3, 4

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 302, 436

• Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3, 5

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a TADA convict who has served more than 33 years of life imprisonment, has shown exemplary conduct during incarceration, has been recommended for premature release by the State Sentence Review Board (though later rejected), and is now aged 77 years with multiple medical ailments, is entitled to remission of sentence and premature release under the reformative theory of punishment, despite the gravity of the offence and objections from the State.

Key legal principles applied:

• Reformative approach over retribution: Indian criminal jurisprudence has progressively adopted a reformative approach to punishment. The purpose of punishment includes retribution, prevention, deterrence, and reformation. Reformation is now the dominant objective, and imprisonment should aim to recreate a healthy individual from a convicted prisoner. (Jacob George v. State of Kerala; State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat)

• Factors for prematur

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.