Supreme Court to Odisha: Rule on Dara Singh's remission plea or we will
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a firm warning to the Odisha government, stating that it must take a decision on the remission plea of Dara Singh, convicted in the 1999 Graham Staines murder case. “Don't try to dodge us,” the bench told the state government, making clear that if no decision is forthcoming, the court would step in.
Singh was part of a mob that set fire to a vehicle carrying Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons, Philip (10) and Timothy (6), in Keonjhar, Odisha, in January 1999. The attack, which occurred while Staines and his sons were sleeping inside the vehicle, shocked the nation and drew international condemnation. Staines, who had worked with leprosy patients in the region for decades, was targeted by a group that accused him of forced conversions.
In 2003, a trial court sentenced Singh to death. The Odisha High Court later commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment in 2005, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011. Singh has now been incarcerated for over 26 years, and his plea for remission of the life sentence has been pending before the State Sentence Review Board.
During the hearing before a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, the court expressed deep concern over the repeated adjournments in the matter. The bench noted that earlier hearings were deferred specifically to allow the Sentence Review Board to decide on Singh's plea. However, instead of a decision, the state's counsel, P V Yogeswaran, presented a letter from the Directorate of Prison and Correctional Services stating that a report from the district jail in Keonjhar had not yet been received.
The bench was unconvinced by the explanation. “We are not concerned about who is communicating what. We cannot tolerate this avoidance of decision,” the court observed. The justices emphasised that the matter was being repeatedly postponed to enable the state to make a call, but no progress had been made.
“This matter has been adjourned time and again to enable the respondents to take a decision on the plea of remission of sentence awarded to the petitioner who is incarcerated for a period exceeding 26 years. It appears that when the matter was adjourned last, the State Sentence Review Board was in the process of taking a decision on the petitioner’s plea. Based on that, the matter was adjourned. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us a letter of the Directorate of Prison and Correctional Services addressed to the counsel, wherein he stated that the report from the district jail, Keonjhar, is yet to be received. We are not informed of the sentence review board’s decision. List this matter on 2 September. The review board should apprise us of their decision,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court's decisive tone reflects its irritation with the state's failure to act within a reasonable time. The judgment also raises broader questions about the functioning of sentence review boards across Indian states, which are empowered to consider remission of life sentences after a convict has served a minimum period. In Singh's case, the delay has already stretched over many months, prompting judicial intervention.
Legal experts point out that remission is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows state governments to remit sentences subject to certain conditions. However, such decisions must be made on the basis of objective criteria, including the nature of the offence, conduct of the convict, and broader societal concerns. The Supreme Court has in previous rulings held that remission is not an act of grace but a legal right subject to due process.
In this case, the gravity of the crime — the killing of a missionary and two children — may weigh heavily on the board's deliberation. Yet the court has also stressed that the legal process must not be stalled indefinitely. The state has been given until September 2 to either decide on the plea or explain why it cannot.
The case has been closely watched, as it touches on issues of communal harmony, criminal justice, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court's insistence on a timely decision underscores the constitutional principle that no authority can evade its responsibility. At the same time, the court's willingness to intervene if needed signals that the judiciary will not allow procedural delays to undermine a prisoner's rights.
Singh, who has maintained his innocence in some forums but was convicted based on evidence, remains in jail while the legal process continues. For the victims' families and the broader public, the Supreme Court's order is a reminder that justice, both for the condemned and the convicted, cannot be indefinitely postponed.
