INEFFECTIVE SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD
It has been exactly 20 years since Jessica Lal was shot callously at a night club for mere refusal of drinks. Charges were filed against Manu Sharma, the son of Congress leader, Venod Sharma. In a country where political power is immutable, one could almost predict the predicament that would follow. The Trial Court, against all expectations, acquitted all nine accused citing lack of evidence. An appeal was filed in the High Court, which took a stand by reversing the verdict of the Trial Court. This was in the background of massive protests and coverage the heinous crime had received. On an appeal to the apex court of India, Manu Sharma in 2010 received punishment to serve a life term in jail. Manu Sharma has now moved the High Court seeking relief. He pleads to be released citing the reason that he has served 15 years in jail without remission and over 20 years with remission and is thus eligible for grant of premature release. He has contended that several authorities, including the prison, police and social welfare department has recommended his premature release from prison. Despite this, in October 2018, the Sentence Review Board had declined relief without giving any cogent reasons. He has alleged that the Board had not been unbiased and fair in the manner it has conducted in proceedings.
This filing comes with support from earlier dicta by the same court. The Delhi High Court in a PIL in 2018, directed the Sentence Review Board to strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria for the premature release of a prisoner. Even more recently, Sushil Kumar who is a Youth Congress Leader had been released after serving 23 years in prison. The High Court after consideration has disposed of the petition asking the Board to review his relief and stated that in light of the favourable reports from the department, his release should be considered.
This opens us up to a bigger concern in regards to the state of prisoners who have been serving for years end without any relief. In the above mentioned PIL, the High Court had stated that a suo moto review should be done of all the sentence of prisoners whose period of imprisonment exceeds the limits of 20 years. The Board had also been urged to meet quarterly but this order is not being adhered to in spirit. This Board which was constituted specially to consider the case of release of convicts has failed to make an improvement in this regard. Many prisoners who had raised the issue of illegal confinement are still behind bars waiting for relief. For deciding any case for premature release, the board is mandatorily required to consider the reports and recommendations of the jail superintendent which includes the conduct in jail, report of the welfare officer. Such reports are to play a major role in pre-mature release and cannot be ignored. The Court needs to step in and ask the Board to play a more pro-active role, it is important that the convicts are not illegally confined and their welfare is also given utmost priority.
Prerona Banerjee,
INBA Student Reporter.