The Supreme Court declined to hear Santosh Kumar Singh’s plea against denial of parole extension, citing the pending remission case before the Delhi High Court. The Court allowed him to seek an urgent hearing in the High Court, which is scheduled to take up the matter on May 18.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a plea filed by convict Santosh Kumar Singh challenging the denial of extension of his parole in the 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case. The Court made it clear that since the core issue of remission is already pending before the Delhi High Court, it would not intervene at this stage.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the matter is already listed for hearing before the High Court on May 18. The apex court granted Singh the liberty to approach the High Court for an early hearing and speedy disposal of his plea.
The bench stated,
“It is needless to say that if such a request is made, the high court shall consider it, having regard to the facts of the case that the incident occurred on January 23, 1996, and the petitioner has been in jail for 31 years, including remission,”
the bench said. The Supreme Court further urged the High Court to decide the case as soon as possible in accordance with law.
During the hearing, Singh’s counsel argued that the High Court had passed a harsh order by directing him to surrender. It was pointed out that Singh has been serving his sentence in an open jail, where he is allowed to leave the premises daily between 8 am and 8 pm for employment purposes.
Earlier, on March 19, the Delhi High Court had directed Singh to surrender after Priyadarshini Mattoo’s brother strongly opposed his plea for premature release. The High Court had clarified that it would only consider his remission plea after he surrenders.
Mattoo’s brother had argued that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) was correct in rejecting Singh’s request for remission. Singh, who was granted parole last year, has remained out of jail after obtaining multiple extensions from the High Court while his remission plea was pending.
The case dates back to January 1996, when 25-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo was raped and murdered. Singh, who was then a law student at Delhi University, was initially acquitted by a trial court on December 3, 1999. However, the Delhi High Court overturned the acquittal on October 27, 2006, convicted him, and awarded the death penalty.
Later, in October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
In July last year, the Delhi High Court set aside the SRB’s decision rejecting Singh’s premature release, observing that his reformative conduct had not been properly considered. The court noted that there were clear signs of reformation and sent the matter back to the SRB for fresh consideration.
The High Court had observed,
“No effort was made to evaluate the petitioner’s (Singh) demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes,”
it had said.
The court also highlighted that Singh is currently lodged in an open prison, which itself reflects his positive behaviour and reform. It stated that this was a significant factor that the SRB failed to acknowledge or assess.
Further, the High Court criticised the SRB’s reasoning and said that its decision lacked proper application of mind and did not provide a reasoned analysis of Singh’s reformative efforts.
While examining the case, the High Court had also remarked that the board’s observation that jail conduct is not an indicator of future behaviour “not only effectively nullifies the probative value of the convict’s post-conviction conduct and reformative efforts” but also reflects a “patently erroneous and arbitrary approach” that undermines the very purpose of the remission policies.
The court had also recorded that Singh became eligible for premature release after completing 20 years of imprisonment, including remission. It further noted that as per the minutes of the SRB meetings in 2024, the 2004 remission policy was applicable in his case, since it was in force at the time of his conviction.
Singh had originally approached the High Court in 2023 seeking to quash the SRB’s recommendation rejecting his premature release in its October 21, 2021 meeting. However, even after reconsideration in 2024, his plea was again rejected, leading to the ongoing legal battle over his remission and parole status.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Money Laundering
