HC orders release of convict serving life sentence for 2003 DU student rape

THe new delhi heights margaret court has ordered the prompt resign of Harpreet Singh, a former member of the elite President’s Bodyguard, serving a life sentence for the gang rape of a 17-year-old Delhi University student at Buddha Jayanti Park in 2003, saying he had transformed from a prisoner to a reformed individual.Harpreet Singh was convicted along with Satender Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Munesh Kumar in 2009 for the gang rape. The 17-year-old Delhi University student was raped at Buddha Jayanti Park behind Rashtrapati Bhavan in October 2003 when she had gone there to attend a programme by the Dalai Lama. The high court in August 2012 upheld Harpreet Singh’s life imprisonment.In a January 30 order, a bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that judging Harpreet Singh solely on his 2003 offence, while ignoring 21 years of unblemished progress, would reject the reformative theory of punishment, which rests on the possibility of human change.The order, released on Tuesday, said his continued detention, despite fulfilling all reformative criteria and surpassing the outer limit based on the Delhi government’s 2004 policy for premature release of life convicts, would directly impact the fundamental right to life and liberty.“The petitioner’s journey from being a public servant who fell into the crime to a prisoner who earned 21 years of clean conduct and multiple commendations demonstrates that the reformative objective of his sentence has been fulfilled,” the order said.The court criticised the Sentence Review Board (SRB) for adopting a myopic approach while repeatedly rejecting his petition for premature release solely based on the offence’s nature and gravity, ignoring positive institutional reports, and issuing stereotypical “copy-paste” orders without reasoned explanations.The bench observed that the SRB’s reasoning was not an assessment of a human being, but a re-assessment of the original trial, which represented a typecasting of the convict based on a 22-year-old case, while totally devaluing the state’s own assessment of successful reformation. The SRB, it said, failed to follow a fair process, consider relevant material, and arrive at a conclusion that a reasonable body could reach.“The Rejection Orders in the petitioners are pithily drafted, cursorily articulated proforma paragraphs taking a myopic view of only the gravity of offence, overlooking all other relevant considerations. Also, the reasoning process devolved into a copy-paste exercise, with no other reason for rejection. The SRB repeatedly invoked the phrase that the crime would shake the confidence of society,” the court said.“Such reasoning is an unfortunate shortcut and a bureaucratic lethargy that fails to explain how the release of a reformed individual after 25 years of incarceration would undermine social order, especially in the light of the number of Parole/Furloughs availed by him and a favourable Report by all the agencies.”The court passed the order while hearing Harpreet Singh’s plea seeking premature release under the Delhi government’s July 2004 policy, which prescribes 14 years of actual imprisonment as the primary threshold for standard life sentences and up to 25 years even for the most heinous crimes, and challenging the SRB’s February 2024 decision rejecting his request.In his petition, argued by advocate Sumer Singh Boparai, Harpreet Singh said he has reformed during his incarceration, having been placed on the commendation roll, awarded certificates of recognition on at least three occasions, and actively participated in various activities while maintaining diligence and discipline during his 25 years in prison.He submitted that although he was convicted of a heinous offence, he no longer poses a risk of reoffending, as reflected in assessments by jail authorities, and noted that his plea for premature release has been rejected 12 times in eight years.The Delhi Police, represented by additional standing counsel Anmol Sinha, opposed the petition, saying each of his applications for premature release was duly considered in accordance with the policy and relevant factors, and that he could not claim premature release as a matter of right.