Delhi HC Summons Home Secretary Over Defiance of Court Order
The Delhi High Court orders the Home Secretary to appear in person after the government failed to comply with a directive regarding a convict's remission.
The Delhi High Court has taken a stern view of the Delhi Government's failure to comply with its judicial directives, ordering the Secretary of the Home Department to appear in person. This drastic step comes amidst a contempt petition alleging that the government ignored a specific order passed in May 2025 regarding the remission of a life convict.
The Core of the Conflict: Sonu Sonkar's Remission
The legal battle centers around Sonu Sonkar, a life convict who had previously been granted premature release. After spending 15 years in prison, Sonkar's application for release was recommended by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) based on his consistent good conduct. This recommendation was approved, and he was released on September 9, 2019, after providing a personal bond.
However, the situation shifted when Sonkar was named in an attempt to murder case while out on remission. Following this arrest, the authorities moved to cancel his remission, effectively sending him back to custody.
The High Court's Stance on Natural Justice
Sonkar challenged the cancellation of his remission, arguing that the decision was made without giving him a fair chance to be heard. In a ruling dated May 20, 2025, Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that a person's liberty cannot be stripped away by a simple administrative decree without following procedural safeguards.
The Court highlighted several key points:
- Supreme Court Precedent: The court noted that the Supreme Court has clearly mandated that any decision to revoke remission must follow due process.
- Right to be Heard: This process must include issuing a show-cause notice and allowing the convict to respond to the grounds for cancellation.
- Procedural Gaps: While the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules of 2018 did not explicitly require a show-cause notice at the time, the court ruled that Supreme Court precedents must be read into the process to ensure natural justice.
"The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict’s re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice."
Failure to Comply and the Contempt Petition
Following the May 2025 order, the authorities were directed to reconsider the cancellation of Sonkar's remission and pass a reasoned order within four weeks after considering his response. However, the deadline passed without action.
During the hearing on October 14, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that despite the filing of a contempt petition, the respondents had failed to file a Compliance Affidavit. The court further noted that the counsel for the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) was unavailable as they were occupied in another court.
The Court's Final Directive
Frustrated by the lack of progress and the absence of a compliance report, Justice Krishna directed the Secretary of the Home Department (GNCTD) to appear in person before the court to explain the non-compliance.
The petitioner, Sonu Sonkar, was represented by advocates Arpit Batra, Shaswat Mishra, and Abhilasha Chhalia during the proceedings.