Sentence Review Board

What is “Sentence Review Board”

A Sentence Review Board (SRB) is a panel or body that reviews criminal sentences to ensure they are fair, appropriate, and consistent with the law. It may have the authority to recommend sentence reductions, grant parole, or adjust sentences based on factors like rehabilitation, good behavior, or changes in the law.

Official Definition of “Sentence Review Board”

A Sentence Review Board (SRB) is a government-mandated body tasked with assessing the cases of convicted prisoners, particularly those serving life sentences, for potential premature release or other sentence modifications. The SRB considers factors such as the nature of the crime, the convict's behavior and reform during imprisonment, and recommendations from various departments like the police and social welfare.

Function of the “Sentence Review Board”

The Sentence Review Board Performs These Functions:

1. The SRB reviews applications for premature release after prisoners have completed a stipulated minimum period of incarceration.
2. It ensures a standardized approach across states and union territories to prevent disparities in the treatment of cases​.
3. Each case is reviewed on its individual merits, taking into account factors like the gravity of the offense, conduct during incarceration, and prospects for social reintegration.

“Sentence Review Board” in official government reports

The Mulla Committee Report (All-India Committee on Jail Reform (1980-83) has recommended for uniform guidelines for proper and predictable working of Review Boards and institutionalize them at the Jail Headquarters, too, we require a Review Board to evaluate, consider and approve pre-mature release of jail inmates.

Legal Provision(s) relating to “Sentence Review Board"

Constitution And Composition of Sentence Review Board

The Sentence Review Board (SRB) is a pivotal element of criminal justice reform in India, tasked with reviewing the sentences of prisoners who have served over 14 years of imprisonment or two-thirds of their sentence, whichever is less. It can recommend remission, commutation, or release based on factors like the prisoner’s conduct, rehabilitation, and reintegration prospects. The SRB balances justice, human rights, and public safety while giving prisoners an opportunity for reform. Its composition typically includes officials such as the Chief Secretary, Director General of Prisons, representatives from legal and medical fields, and social experts, ensuring diverse perspectives in its decision-making. Victims' families, prosecutors, and prison authorities are also consulted for comprehensive assessments.

Meetings and Quorum

1.The State Sentence Review Board meets at least once in two months. The Inspector General of Prisons notifies the date and agenda at least 10 days in advance. Emergency meetings can also be convened by the Chairperson.

2.At least four members are required for a valid meeting. The absence of a member or vacancy does not prevent the review of cases​.

Procedure To Be Followed By “Sentence Review Board”

The Modern Prison Manual(2003) Provides the procedure to be followed by the SRBs:

Convening of Sentence Review Board Meetings

• The Head of Prisons/Inspector General of Prisons convenes the meeting at the State Headquarters.
• Notice, with agenda papers (Superintendent's note, recommendations, and other documents), is sent to the Chairman and Members at least 10 days in advance.

Conduct of Meetings

• Meetings are chaired by the Chairman or, in their absence, by the Judicial Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer.
• The Member Secretary presents cases to the Board.
• Decisions are made:
  • Preferably unanimously; otherwise, by majority.
  • In the event of a tie, the Chairman’s decision prevails.

Principles for Consideration

• The Board considers:
  • General principles of amnesty and remission.
  • Precedents and guidelines from the State Government or courts.
  • Welfare of the prisoner and society.
• Police recommendations are not binding if based on far-fetched or hypothetical assumptions.
• The Board evaluates:
  • Circumstances of the offence.
  • Propensity to reoffend.

Reconsideration of Rejected Cases

• Rejection of a prisoner’s case does not bar future consideration.
• Reconsideration timeline:
  • After one year or as specified by the Board (not exceeding three years).
  • Fresh reports from the Superintendent are mandatory.
  • Fresh reports from the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and Probation Officer are required every five years.
• Focus is on the prisoner’s conduct in the interim.

Final Decision and Implementation

• Sentence Review Board recommendations are forwarded to the competent authority without delay.
• The competent authority can:
  • Accept the recommendations.
  • Reject them, stating reasons.
  • Ask the Board to reconsider a case.
• Approved cases are implemented immediately, with or without conditions, and communicated to the prisoner.

General Eligibility Criteria for Premature Release:

The Model Prison Manual(2003) provides the general eligibilty critera for premature release:

Women Offenders:

• Infanticide cases: Reviewed immediately upon prison admission and referred to reputable voluntary organizations.
• Crimes under compulsion/social pressures: Reviewed immediately upon admission for potential referral to reputable voluntary organizations.
• Life imprisonment: Eligible after completing 7 years of imprisonment, including remission (except those under Section 433-A of CrPC, requiring 14 years of actual imprisonment).

Life Convicts (Men and Adolescent Offenders):

• Eligible for review after completing 10 years of imprisonment, including remission (except those under Section 433-A of CrPC, requiring 14 years of actual imprisonment).

Non-Habitual Offenders:

• Men and adolescents (excluding life imprisonment): Eligible after serving half of their sentence, including remission, provided at least 1 year has been completed.
• Women (excluding life imprisonment): Eligible after serving half of their sentence, including remission, provided at least 1 year has been completed.

Habitual Offenders (excluding life imprisonment):

• Eligible after serving two-thirds of their sentence, including remission, provided at least 5 years have been completed.

Prisoners Convicted of Serious Offences (e.g., rape, dacoity, terrorism, smuggling, NDPS Act violations, etc.):

• Life imprisonment: Eligible after 14 years of imprisonment, including remission.
• Other sentences (5 years or more): Eligible after completing three-fourths of the sentence, provided at least 5 years have been completed.

Old and Infirm Prisoners (excluding life imprisonment):

• Aged 65+ and sentenced to 1+ years: Eligible after completing one-third of the sentence, provided at least 1 year has been completed.

Terminally Ill Offenders:

• Eligible for release at any point upon certification by a designated Medical Board of an incurable, fatal disease.

Sentence Review Board as discussed in caselaws

In Anirudha Haldar & Another v. State of West Bengal (2023), the West Bengal government’s failure to include a Sessions Judge in the SRB, as mandated by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines, led the court to invalidate its proceedings and direct reconstitution. This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements to maintain the board’s legitimacy and uphold judicial standards.

Another case, Dilip S. Shetye v. Sentence Review Board (2020), highlighted flaws in the SRB’s approach. A life convict who had served 20 years and displayed exemplary behavior was denied premature release seven times due to the severity of his crime and objections from the victim's family. However, the convict’s willingness to provide assurances of good conduct, coupled with recommendations for release from a Sessions Judge, led the High Court to override the SRB’s decision. The court criticized the board for overly relying on the nature of the crime and ignoring positive rehabilitation factors.

The Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Srivastava (2013), clarified that referring cases for reconsideration to the SRB does not compel it to change its earlier decision, granting the board autonomy in its deliberations. These cases emphasize the need for a balanced approach by the SRB, ensuring fair consideration of rehabilitation and reintegration prospects without compromising public safety.

International Experience of “Sentence Review Boards”

Sentence Review Boards (SRBs), also known as parole boards, judicial review committees, or other similar bodies, exist internationally but vary greatly in their roles, mandates, and frameworks based on each country's legal and correctional system. Below are some international references to SRBs or analogous institutions:

United States:

• Parole Boards: In the U.S., parole boards are responsible for reviewing sentences for early release. They operate under state-specific laws and federal guidelines.
• Commutation & Clemency Boards: Some states also have boards focused on sentence commutations, often involving the governor.

United Kingdom:

• Parole Board for England and Wales: Independent body reviewing sentences for prisoners eligible for parole. Decisions are based on risk assessment, rehabilitation, and justice principles.
• Scotland and Northern Ireland: Operate their own parole boards with similar functions.

Canada:

• Parole Board of Canada (PBC): Reviews and grants parole to federal prisoners. It is a national-level body focusing on rehabilitation and public safety.

Australia:

• State and Territory Parole Boards: Each state and territory has its parole system. Boards may also review life sentences. Key Examples:
  • New South Wales State Parole Authority.
  • Queensland Parole Board.

South Africa:

• Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards: Governed under the Correctional Services Act of 1998, these boards review sentences and determine early release based on rehabilitation and societal safety.

European Union (EU):

• Sentence Review Mechanisms: While not uniform, many EU countries use independent judicial review for life sentences. Examples:
  • Germany and the Netherlands emphasize rehabilitation as a constitutional right for sentence review.
  • France's "Conseil d'Application des Peines" (Sentence Enforcement Councils) reviews prison sentences.

Japan:

• Parole Examination Boards: Governed under the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates, parole boards review sentences based on rehabilitation and societal safety.

New Zealand:

• New Zealand Parole Board: Evaluates parole eligibility, considering rehabilitation efforts and risk assessments under the Parole Act of 2002.

International Human Rights Standards:

• United Nations Standards:
  • Nelson Mandela Rules: Encourage rehabilitation-focused corrections and humane treatment.
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 10(3) emphasizes the need for rehabilitation mechanisms, which often include sentence reviews.

Research that engages with “Sentence Review Board”

WORKING OF SENTENCE REVIEW BOARDS IN INDIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

This paper by Animesh Jha and Himanshu Ranjan aims to investigate the functioning of Sentence Review Boards (SRBs) in India, focusing on the identification and analysis of key issues and challenges associated with their operation.