Live
- Woman’s False Claim Sparks Unnecessary Panic
- Locals Report Naxal Activity in Karkala Village
- Mangaluru International Airport Sets New Records in Passenger and Flight Movements
- Where Areca failed, grow Coffee
- Collector Badavath Santosh Reviews Household Survey and Listing Process
- Awareness Session on SHE Team and POCSO Act
- Awareness Program in agricultural College on the Dangers of Drug Abuse for Youth
- 3500-Year-Old Menhir in Kamsanpally Village: A Call for Preservation
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Transforming Diagnosis and Patient Care
- Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Signs MoU with Rajasthan Government to Invest Rs 36 Crores in Education Development
Hold SRB meetings every quarter: HC
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the AAP government and prison authorities to ensure that the Sentence Review Board SRB holds meetings, at least every quarter, to consider the pleas for remission of jail term of prisoners, some of whom are elderly and have been languishing in the Tihar Jail for 2025 years
- Considering prisoners’ plea for sentence remission
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the AAP government and prison authorities to ensure that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) holds meetings, at least every quarter, to consider the pleas for remission of jail term of prisoners, some of whom are elderly and have been "languishing" in the Tihar Jail for 20-25 years.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar issued the direction while saying that the authorities were expected to follow the SRB order of 2004, which laid down the guidelines for holding the meetings, in letter and spirit.
The court further directed that the Board shall ensure adjudication of the requests for premature release are scrutinised according to the guidelines laid down in the SRB order.
The bench also said that the SRB should, on its own, also conduct review of the jail term of all the prisoners whose incarceration has exceeded 20 years.
Apart from that the Board was also directed by the court to ensure reasons are assigned by SRB for approving or rejecting any request for premature release by a prisoner.
"If courts can give reasons, you (SRB) too jolly well can," the bench said and disposed of the PIL by advocate Sumeet Verma, who had contended that meetings of the Board are not held as often as they should be.
Verma had said in his plea that any further delay in consideration of the cases of the inmates by the SRB would be "absolutely arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional scheme".
He had said that SRB meetings were required to be held at least every quarter, but in practice they are held twice or maximum thrice a year and this has been the trend for the last several years.
The plea had also said that over 150 prisoners' cases were due to be reviewed by the SRB for premature release, but the Board was yet to meet after its meeting in December 2017.
Verma had also said that many of the prisoners languishing in the jail for 20-25 years were not habitual offenders and have been maintaining an overall good conduct.
