Priyadarshini Mattoo case: SC refuses to hear plea challenging denial of extension of convict's parole.

PTI, Apr 10, 2026, New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea challenging the denial of extension of parole granted to convict Santosh Kumar Singh in the 1996 Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the main matter related to remission is already pending before the Delhi High Court and coming up for hearing on May 18.

The bench granted liberty to Singh to seek advancement of his hearing on the plea before the high court and expeditious disposal.

"It is needless to say that if such a request is made, the high court shall consider it, having regard to the facts of the case that the incident occurred on January 23, 1996, and the petitioner has been in jail for 31 years, including remission," the bench said.

The top court requested the high court to dispose of the matter at the earliest in accordance with law.

Counsel for Singh contended that the high court has passed a very drastic order, directing him to surrender, and his client has been serving his sentence in an 'open jail', which allows him to exit the jail complex daily between 8 am and 8 pm for gainful employment.

On March 19, the high court directed Singh to surrender after Mattoo's brother strongly opposed his plea for premature release.

It had said that the court would consider Singh's plea for remission only after he surrendered.

Mattoo's brother has contended that the sentence review board (SRB) has rightly rejected his plea for remission.

Singh, who was granted parole last year, has remained out of jail after he managed to secure several extensions from the high court while his plea for remission was pending.

Mattoo, 25, was raped and murdered in January 1996, and Singh, then a law student at Delhi University, was acquitted by a trial court on December 3, 1999. However, the high court overturned the verdict on October 27, 2006, convicting Singh, son of a former IPS officer, and sentencing him to death.

In October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

In July last year, the high court set aside the SRB's decision refusing the premature release of the convict, saying his reformative conduct was not considered.

The high court said it found an element of reformation in Singh and referred the matter back to the SRB to consider afresh his plea for premature release.

"No effort was made to evaluate the petitioner's (Singh) demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes," it had said.

The court had noted that Singh was presently lodged in an open prison.

The placement in such a prison category is a reflection of the "positive reformative conduct" of the convict, and this was a critical indicator of reform which the SRB has failed to even acknowledge, let alone evaluate, it had said.

The court said the SRB's decision to reject Singh's premature release plea could not be sustained, as the rejection order neither disclosed a meaningful application of mind nor reflected a reasoned analysis of the reformative efforts made by him.

While deciding Singh's case, the high court had said the board's holding that the convict's conduct in jail was not an indicator of what they might do outside "not only effectively nullifies the probative value of the convict's post-conviction conduct and reformative efforts" but also reflects a "patently erroneous and arbitrary approach" that undermines the very purpose of the remission policies.

It had said Singh became eligible for premature release after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years, including remission.

In the minutes of the SRB meetings of 2024, the board correctly acknowledged that the 2004 policy was applicable, as it was in force on the date of his conviction.

In his 2023 petition before the high court, Singh had sought the quashing of the recommendation of the SRB rejecting his premature release in the October 21, 2021, meeting. Thereafter, his case was considered in a 2024 meeting and again rejected.