Nasir Mohd Sodozey @ Aftaab Ahmed @ Abdullah v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2025
The Court adopts a restrictive approach to remission for offences threatening national security, emphasizing the policy’s emphasis on societal welfare.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
8 September 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjeev Narula
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Nasir Mohd Sodozey was convicted in 2002 for involvement in a terrorist conspiracy involving the abduction of four foreign nationals.
-
Initially sentenced to death, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in 2003.
-
After serving over 26 years, he applied for premature release under the Delhi Government’s 2004 remission policy which caps incarceration at 25 years inclusive of remission.
-
His plea was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB), and he challenged this decision in the Delhi High Court.
-
The police opposed release citing the convict’s association with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a key conspirator who was released earlier under duress.
Issues
-
Whether the convict’s long incarceration period entitles him to premature release under the remission policy?
-
Whether the gravity and nature of the offence, and national security concerns override the remission policy entitlement?
-
Can a life convict claim release as a matter of right under remission policy?
Judgement
-
The Delhi High Court upheld the SRB’s rejection of premature release.
-
The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence: abduction of foreign nationals as part of a terrorist conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the State and pressuring the Government.
-
The crime had international ramifications and affected India’s sovereignty and reputation globally.
-
The Court stressed that the welfare of society, national security, and public order are overriding considerations in deciding release under remission policy.
-
The association of the convict with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and the consequences of that conspiracy weighed against release.
-
It was clarified that long incarceration does not create an absolute right to release; rather, the convict has only a right to have the case considered under the policy.
Held
-
The plea for premature release was rejected.
-
The nature and broader impact of the offence, combined with national security concerns, outweigh the period of incarceration served.
-
The remission policy provides a procedural right to consideration, not an automatic right to release.
Analysis
-
The judgment underscores the exceptional gravity of terrorist offences compared to ordinary crimes.
-
It balances the individual’s incarceration period against the larger societal interest in security and order.
-
The Court adopts a restrictive approach to remission for offences threatening national security, emphasizing the policy’s emphasis on societal welfare.
-
It also reflects the Court’s concern about terrorist networks and their possible revival if such convicts are prematurely released.