Published on: Nov 09, 2025

New Delhi: In a rare Sunday sitting, the Delhi High Court granted a four-week parole to a convicted gang rapist to attend the last rites of his sister, who passed away earlier in the day. The court’s decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) and its handling of parole requests for life-term convicts.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the special sitting on Sunday, had previously granted the 55-year-old convict, Tasleem, one-day custody parole on November 7 to visit his ailing sister in the hospital. On being informed of her death on Sunday morning, the court expedited consideration of his application, noting the urgency of the humanitarian circumstances.

“The application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on parole for four weeks from the date of his release, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000, with the cash surety earlier deposited with the jail authorities, to the satisfaction of the concerned jail superintendent,” the court ordered.

Tasleem’s sister, aged 60, had been suffering from post-tuberculosis lung complications and was on long-term oxygen therapy. She was moved to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on November 6, prompting Tasleem’s initial plea for parole to be with his family during her critical illness. Her sudden demise necessitated an urgent judicial intervention to facilitate his presence at her funeral and to provide the family an opportunity to grieve together.

Tasleem was convicted for the gang rape of a woman in 1997 and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1999. His appeals against the conviction were dismissed by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, exhausting his legal remedies. Despite this, his repeated pleas for parole brought into focus procedural lapses and the lack of standardized evaluation criteria within the SRB framework.

The court, while considering Tasleem’s application, highlighted concerns over the manner in which the SRB had been functioning. It observed that the board’s processes for reviewing parole requests were often “superficial and perfunctory,” lacking detailed assessments of a convict’s current psychological state and propensity for reoffending.

“This court has, over the past months, been dealing with numerous petitions concerning premature release, and in each such matter, meaningful adjudication depends upon the existence of a uniform and rational procedure consistent with the directions issued in the Santosh Kumar Singh case,” Justice Narula noted.

The reference to the Santosh Kumar Singh case is significant. Singh, serving a life sentence for the 1996 rape and murder of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo, had petitioned for premature release, which the High Court rejected. In that judgment, the court framed guidelines emphasizing the need for the SRB to conduct formal psychological evaluations by competent medical professionals before considering parole requests for convicts of serious offences.

According to the court, the absence of such evaluations made it difficult for the SRB to accurately assess whether a convict had lost the propensity to commit similar crimes. The judgment underscored that parole, particularly in cases involving grave offences like rape or murder, should be granted only after a careful, evidence-based assessment of the prisoner’s rehabilitation and risk to society.

In Tasleem’s case, the court balanced these considerations with the immediate humanitarian context—the death of a close family member. By granting a four-week parole, the court provided the convict a limited window to be with his family while ensuring that the parole was structured under strict conditions, including a personal bond and previously deposited cash surety.

Legal experts observing the case noted that the court’s intervention highlights the tension between public safety concerns and the rights of prisoners to maintain familial and social ties. “The judiciary is often required to navigate complex situations where the law, procedural guidelines, and humanitarian considerations intersect,” said a senior criminal lawyer in Delhi. “This case demonstrates the need for clear, standardized processes for parole to prevent arbitrary or inconsistent decisions by review boards.”

The Delhi High Court’s decision also brings renewed attention to the working of the SRB, which is mandated to review sentences and grant parole in accordance with law. The board’s current framework, as highlighted by Justice Narula, does not formally require psychological assessments or structured evaluations of life-term convicts, leaving room for ad hoc or inconsistent decision-making.

Advocates have argued that integrating professional psychological evaluations, alongside risk assessments and rehabilitation indicators, can make parole decisions more transparent and defensible. In serious crime cases, such mechanisms are crucial to maintain public trust in the criminal justice system while ensuring that convicts’ rights are respected under the law.

Tasleem’s parole is a temporary measure focused on family bereavement. He remains incarcerated under life sentence conditions for his 1997 conviction. The court’s order underscores that such humanitarian parole does not equate to any reduction of sentence or modification of his legal obligations. It also sends a broader signal that courts are willing to consider urgent personal circumstances while adhering to structured legal principles.

The decision comes at a time when India is increasingly scrutinizing parole procedures for life convicts, particularly in cases involving sexual violence. There is ongoing public debate about balancing the rights of prisoners with societal safety, and how parole can be granted without compromising justice for victims.

As the convict prepares to attend his sister’s last rites, the Delhi High Court’s intervention is likely to serve as a reference for future parole petitions in similar contexts, emphasizing procedural diligence, humanitarian considerations, and adherence to the guidelines laid down in landmark cases such as Santosh Kumar Singh.

---