Md. Rashid Khan, imprisoned for over 33 years, granted premature release by Delhi HC emphasizing reformative justice over retributive measures.
In a landmark decision emphasizing the principles of reformative justice, the Delhi High Court has directed the premature release of Md. Rashid Khan, a 77-year-old convict serving a life sentence under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her judgment dated June 5, 2026, underscored the importance of a reformative approach over retribution in India's sentencing policy.
Md. Rashid Khan was convicted in 2001 for his role in a 1992 bomb blast case in Kolkata and has been in custody since 1993. The petitioner argued that despite his impeccable conduct during incarceration, advanced age, and deteriorating health, his requests for premature release had been repeatedly denied by the State Sentence Review Board and the Central Government. The court noted that Khan had served over 33 years, including time remitted, and had demonstrated significant reformation during his incarceration.
Justice Krishna highlighted that the co-convict in the same case had been granted remission earlier, pointing out the lack of parity in treatment. The court also took into account Khan's age, medical conditions, and the positive reports from correctional authorities.
The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents that favor a reformative approach, asserting that the purpose of incarceration should be to reform and reintegrate convicts into society. The court emphasized that keeping an elderly convict with a spotless conduct record in jail served no fruitful purpose and that Khan's release would align with modern penological theories that prioritize rehabilitation.
In conclusion, the court directed the immediate release of Khan, provided he is not wanted in any other case. This decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to reformative justice.
Bottom line:-
Reformative approach over retribution emphasized in sentencing policy for premature release of convicts. Factors such as conduct during incarceration, age, medical ailments, and loss of propensity to commit crime weigh heavily in favor of remission.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 120B, 436, 302 of IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, Sections 432, 433, 435 of Cr.P.C., Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Md. Rashid Khan v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925229
