You will get objective treatment, Delhi HC to Mattoo case convict’s release plea
The Delhi High Court on Thursday assured Santosh Kumar Singh, life convict in the 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case, that he would get an “objective treatment” on the issue of his premature release, as it remarked that the sentence review board seemed to be proceeding on public perception.
Justice Anup J Bhambhani said there was no doubt that the offence was heinous and the family of the deceased suffered a “permanent loss”, but the sentence review board (SRB) seemed to be deciding the pleas for premature release like the blindfolded Lady Justice.
“SRB seems to be proceeding on public perception. You are a hugely unpopular person... SRB is looking at things like Lady Justice as she originally was, with a blindfold. Your name doesn’t sound good so I am rejecting it,” the judge remarked orally.
The court informed that it was seized of several other cases arising from the rejection of premature release pleas of convicts by the SRB and listed Singh’s petition on the same issue along with them on April 20.
The court was dealing with Singh’s application seeking to advance from May 18 the date of hearing on his petition regarding premature release.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the convict, submitted that Singh has spent 31 years in custody and, despite the High Court’s exhaustive decision passed last year on an earlier rejection of his plea for premature release, the SRB rejected his case again on the same grounds.
Justice Bhambhani said that there were “worse cases”, including that of 41 years in custody, as the SRB was “just rejecting things” on account of the heinousness of the offence despite receiving recommendations to the contrary.
“You will be treated objectively. You will be treated in accordance with what I distil,” he said.
In his petition, Singh challenged the November 27, 2025, decision of the SRB rejecting his case for premature release.
The counsel for Mattoo’s brother opposed the plea to advance the date of the hearing and said the convict committed a grave offence.
The court, however, said that Singh was punished for the offence and asked if he could be kept in jail.
The court observed that the convict in the 1995 Tandoor murder case, Sushil Kumar, was released after 23 years in prison.
“There is something called reformation. There is something called 30 years in custody. There is something called transfer to open jail,” the court stated.
It said, “I understand your sentiments. What he did was unacceptable and the system punished him. He got life. The offence was heinous. (But) What do we do? We confine a man like this?”
Singh’s counsel said the convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case was also subsequently released.
He emphasised that in the present case, Singh had been in open jail for the last several years, practising law in a trial court during the day, and was therefore not a danger.
Mattoo, 25, was raped and murdered in January 1996. Singh, a law student of Delhi University, was acquitted by the trial court in the case on December 3, 1999, but the Delhi High Court reversed the decision on October 27, 2006, holding him guilty of rape and murder and awarded him the death penalty.
Singh, the son of a former IPS officer, had challenged his conviction and death sentence awarded by the High Court.
In October 2010, the Supreme Court had upheld Singh’s conviction, but commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
On July 1, 2025, the High Court set aside the decision of the SRB, which had rejected Singh’s plea for premature release, saying there was an element of reformation in him. The court then referred the matter back to the SRB for fresh consideration.
