By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: The Supreme Court is unlikely to simply rubber-stamp Odisha’s rejection without scrutiny, but it is also unlikely to outright order Dara Singh’s release itself unless it finds clear illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind.
Legal position on reviewing sentence-review decisions-Remission / premature release of life convicts is primarily an executive function under Section 432 CrPC (now corresponding BNSS provisions), state policies, and constitutional powers (Articles 72/161). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that: Courts do not sit in appeal over the merits of a remission decision.
Judicial review is limited to narrow grounds: arbitrariness, mala fides, complete non-application of mind, ignoring relevant material, or relying on extraneous/irrelevant factors (principles from Epuru Sudhakar, Mohinder Singh, Laxman Naskar, and reaffirmed in recent cases including Bilkis Bano).
The state must follow its own policy (Odisha’s 2022 Guidelines for Premature Release) and consider factors such as nature/gravity of the offence, conduct in prison, likelihood of future crime, impact on society, and reformation.
In the Bilkis Bano case (2024), the SC struck down Gujarat’s remission orders primarily on jurisdictional grounds and for mechanical/stereotyped exercise of power, not merely because the crime was heinous. It emphasised that the decision must show real application of mind to relevant factors.
How this applies to the Dara Singh case: The Odisha State Sentence Review Board’s August 31, 2026 rejection cites:Risk of communal disturbance / societal ramifications. A recent gathering of ~200–250 Dara Sena supporters outside Keonjhar jail who allegedly raised provocative slogans.Consistency with earlier rejections (2016–2023) on similar grounds.These are relevant considerations under established jurisprudence (public order and societal impact are legitimate factors). The board also noted earlier positive signals from jail/district authorities on good behaviour and the length of incarceration (over 26 years). This is not a case of total silence or mechanical rejection. However, the SC has already shown clear impatience:
It has repeatedly directed Odisha to take a definitive decision (accept or reject) instead of indefinite deferrals.On 8 September 2026 the bench (Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi) told the state: “You want to reject it, reject it. We will deal with it. You can’t keep it lingering.” It warned of summoning senior officials if no decision was reported by 17 September.
At the 17 September hearing the Court is expected to examine whether the rejection shows genuine application of mind to the policy criteria or appears driven by political caution / avoidance of controversy. Points that could invite closer scrutiny:
Earlier positive recommendations (jail authorities and, at one stage, the board itself) based on good conduct.Release of a co-convict (Mahendra Hembram) after similar time served.
Whether the “communal disturbance” ground is backed by concrete, current intelligence or is being used as a standing objection.
The SC accepts the rejection as within the state’s domain if the order demonstrates consideration of the relevant factors and is not shown to be purely political or arbitrary. It may, however, ask for a more detailed speaking order or further reports.
If the Court finds the decision suffers from non-application of mind, selective reliance on material, or inconsistency with the state’s own policy and treatment of other similarly placed convicts, it can set the order aside and direct fresh consideration (as it has done in other remission matters).
Direct order of release by the SC itself. The Court almost never usurps the executive’s power on remission unless the case is exceptional. In short, the Supreme Court will not treat Odisha’s decision as immune from review, especially given the long delays and its own prior warnings. But as long as the rejection is grounded in relevant public-order considerations and shows some application of mind, the Court is more likely to uphold the state’s primary role than to force release. The 17 September hearing will clarify the precise judicial response.
The Supreme Court is expected to take a firm but measured stance on 17 September 2026. The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi has repeatedly made its position clear in recent hearings, and the pattern points to the following likely approach:
What the Court is most likely to say/do
Acknowledge that Odisha has finally taken a decision.The Court had repeatedly ordered the state to “take a decision — accept or reject — and stop lingering.” Odisha has now formally rejected the plea (August 31 SSRB meeting). The Bench is expected to note this compliance and ask the state to place the full order and supporting material on record.
Examine whether the rejection shows application of mind- The Court will almost certainly test the stated grounds (risk of communal disturbance, the August 15 Dara Sena gathering, societal ramifications, and consistency with earlier rejections).
It is likely to ask:Whether the decision is based on concrete, current intelligence or is a standing/template objection. How the earlier positive recommendations (jail authorities and, at one stage, the Board itself) on good behaviour were weighed.
Why a co-convict (Mahendra Hembram) was released after similar time served while Dara Singh was not.
Expect oral observations along the lines of: “Remission is primarily an executive function. We do not sit in appeal over the merits, but we will examine whether the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or suffers from non-application of mind.” This is consistent with the Court’s settled jurisprudence (Epuru Sudhakar, Laxman Naskar, Bilkis Bano principles).
Possible short-term directions-Direct the state to file a detailed affidavit explaining the decision and placing the full SSRB proceedings and district reports on record.
Give the petitioner’s counsel time to challenge the rejection order on limited grounds of judicial review.Keep the matter pending for further consideration rather than disposing of it immediately.
What the Court is unlikely to say-It is unlikely to immediately set aside the rejection and order release. The Court almost never usurps the executive’s primary role on remission unless clear illegality or total non-application of mind is shown.It is also unlikely to simply close the matter with a one-line acceptance. Given the long delays and the Bench’s earlier warnings (“You take a decision, otherwise we will”), some probing of the reasons is expected.
The Odisha State Sentence Review Board’s latest decision (August 31, 2026 meeting, reported mid-September 2026) rejected the premature release of Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh at this stage. It cited “societal ramifications” and the risk of communal disturbance, based in part on a Keonjhar district report of a gathering of ~200–250 Dara Sena supporters outside the jail on August 15 who allegedly raised provocative slogans. The board noted the district report was inconclusive/lacked a clear recommendation and referenced earlier rejections (2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) on similar grounds.
Dara Singh (now ~67) is serving life for the January 1999 burning alive of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons (Philip ~10 and Timothy ~6) in Manoharpur, Keonjhar. He has spent over 26 years in prison. The Supreme Court has been pressing Odisha for a clear decision on his remission plea under state guidelines (he became eligible after long incarceration and claims of good behaviour/repentance). Jail and some district authorities had earlier recommended or conditionally supported release; one co-convict (Mahendra Hembram) was released after ~25 years. In July 2026 the board had moved toward recommending release on good-behaviour grounds, but the process did not conclude in release and the August 31 decision reversed course.
Is the rejection justified on the stated grounds?-
The board’s stated rationale is a classic public-order/remission consideration under Indian law: even after long service of sentence and good prison conduct, authorities can weigh ongoing risk of communal tension or law-and-order problems in the area of the original crime. The reported Dara Sena gathering and slogans supplied a concrete, recent trigger. Previous rejections used the same logic. From a strict administrative and peace-maintenance perspective, citing verified local intelligence about potential disturbance is a defensible (if discretionary) basis for declining remission “at this stage.” The crime itself was exceptionally brutal and religiously charged; residual sensitivities in Keonjhar and among Christian communities are real and documented in contemporary reporting.
That said, remission decisions are not purely mechanical. Odisha’s policy allows consideration after ~14–25 years (depending on the guidelines applied), good conduct, and other factors. Singh has long exceeded typical thresholds; other life convicts (including one from the same case) have been released. Repeated deferrals and the pattern of earlier rejections show the decision is also political and risk-averse rather than purely technical.
Role of CM Mohan Charan Majhi / avoiding controversy-
Mohan Majhi (BJP, CM since 2024) previously supported public demands for Singh’s release when he was Keonjhar MLA (including joining protests outside the jail in 2022 alongside Sudarshan TV’s Suresh Chavhanke). The BJP-ruled state government therefore faces cross-pressures: a section of its ideological base views Singh as a Hindutva figure who should be freed after long imprisonment, while releasing him risks domestic and international criticism over the Staines case, potential local communal friction, and perceptions of majoritarianism. The timing—rejection just before a September 17 Supreme Court hearing, after earlier positive signals, and with explicit reference to a recent pro-release gathering—fits a pattern of caution to avoid immediate controversy or unrest. Governments frequently use sentence-review boards this way: the formal process provides cover while political leadership manages optics and ground realities. Whether this is “just to keep away from controversy” is a reasonable inference given the CM’s past stance, the July recommendation that did not translate into release, and the sudden emphasis on the August 15 gathering. At the same time, the board is not a pure political instrument; district reports and earlier consistent rejections on communal-harmony grounds give the decision institutional cover. It is not solely a personal CM manoeuvre, but the political context in BJP-ruled Odisha clearly shapes the risk calculus.
The rejection is grounded in a legitimate (if discretionary) concern about communal disturbance and public order, supported by recent local reporting of mobilisations. It is therefore defensible on the board’s stated terms. However, the long history of rejections, the earlier positive recommendation, the CM’s prior public support for release, and the high political sensitivity of the Staines case make it equally plausible that the decision prioritises avoiding controversy and potential unrest over a pure application of remission guidelines after 26+ years. The Supreme Court will now hear the state’s position; the final legal outcome is not yet settled.
