The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Odisha government for failing to take a decision on the remission plea of Ravindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi expressed displeasure over the continued delay by the Odisha Sentence Review Board and made it clear that the State could not indefinitely defer a decision on the plea for premature release.
The Court granted the State one final opportunity to complete the decision-making process and directed the Sentence Review Board to take a decision by September 2 and place the outcome before the Court.
During the hearing, the State sought to explain the delay by referring to a communication from the Directorate of Prisons and Correctional Services stating that a report from Keonjhar District Jail was still awaited.
The Bench was unimpressed by the explanation and pointed out that the relevant issue before it was whether the Sentence Review Board had taken a decision on Singh’s remission application.
The Court made it clear that inter-departmental communication could not be cited as a justification for keeping the matter pending. It directed the authorities to complete the process and take a decision.
The Bench had earlier granted the State time to consider the remission plea. In July, the Court had adjourned the matter after being informed that the committee examining Singh’s application had sought certain records. The Court had then expected the committee to conclude the process before the next hearing.
Singh has approached the Supreme Court seeking premature release after spending more than two decades in custody. His plea invokes the applicable Odisha remission policy and the principle of reformative justice.
The remission proceedings arise from the January 1999 incident in which Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip and Timothy, were killed after their vehicle was set ablaze by a mob in Manoharpur village in Odisha’s Keonjhar district.
Singh was convicted for his role in the murders. A trial court initially awarded him the death penalty, which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment by the Orissa High Court. The Supreme Court later upheld the life sentence.
The present proceedings do not concern Singh’s conviction or the correctness of the sentence imposed upon him. The issue before the Court is whether he should be considered for premature release under the applicable remission framework.
Singh has relied upon his prolonged incarceration, prison conduct and the principles governing rehabilitation and reform. He has also referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention in the case of A.G. Perarivalan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, while seeking similar consideration of his remission request.
The Odisha authorities, however, have previously informed the Court that the competent body was examining the matter. Reports indicate that Singh’s request has been considered by Sentence Review Committees on earlier occasions, with his remission plea having faced rejection in the past.
The latest intervention by the Supreme Court underscores that remission is an executive function, but the authority vested with the power to decide such an application cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely.
The Court has not itself granted remission to Singh at this stage. Instead, it has required the competent State authority to discharge its statutory responsibility and take a decision within the stipulated timeframe.
The matter is now scheduled to be considered on September 2, when the Odisha authorities are expected to inform the Supreme Court of the decision taken by the Sentence Review Board.
The proceedings assume significance beyond Singh’s individual case as they raise a broader question concerning the obligation of executive authorities to decide remission applications within a reasonable period. While remission does not erase a conviction and eligibility for consideration does not automatically confer a right to release, prolonged administrative inaction cannot substitute for a reasoned decision under the governing legal framework.
The post Supreme Court pulls up Odisha for prolonged delay in deciding Dara Singh’s remission plea appeared first on India Legal.