Delhi Govt’s  Sentence Review Board (SRB) declines Prof Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s remission Application — once again.....by KBS Sidhu

Not a “bail plea”, but a renewed refusal of premature release in the 1993 Maninderjit Singh Bitta Delhi bomb blast life term

On February 10, 2026, the Delhi government’s Sentence Review Board (SRB) once again rejected the plea for premature release filed by Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case.

The decision has revived a long-running public debate, not only over Bhullar’s continued incarceration but also over the persistent mischaracterisation of his plea as a “bail application.”

Legally, the position is unambiguous. Bhullar is not seeking bail in a pending or fresh criminal case. He is a convicted prisoner serving a life term and is asking the executive government to exercise its discretion to grant remission or early release. The SRB’s February 2026 decision is therefore a refusal to remit his sentence, not a denial of bail.

What the Sentence Review Board Decided in February 2026

The SRB met on February 10, 2026, to review the cases of multiple life convicts. After considering the record, the board rejected the premature release of 25 prisoners, including Bhullar.

In his case, the SRB concluded that granting remission was “not tenable,” citing the gravity of the offence and the assessment that his release could still pose a risk to the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the country.

The board acknowledged Bhullar’s long incarceration and earlier applications but reiterated its consistent view that the seriousness of the crime outweighed considerations favouring early release. This approach is in line with earlier SRB decisions, which have repeatedly emphasised the nature of the offence rather than the duration already spent in custody.

Why Calling This a “Bail Rejection” Is Misleading

Much of the public confusion stems from loose media usage of the term “bail.” Bail is a judicial mechanism that allows an accused person temporary liberty while a trial or appeal is pending. Bhullar’s legal status is fundamentally different. His trial concluded decades ago, his conviction has been upheld, and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

What he seeks now is remission or premature release, which is an executive function, not a judicial one. The SRB’s role is to advise the government on whether a life convict deserves early release under applicable remission policies. The February 2026 decision therefore does not concern bail at all; it concerns whether the State should shorten a life sentence that, in law, extends for the convict’s entire natural life unless remitted.

The 1993 Delhi Bomb Blast and Bhullar’s Conviction

Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, an engineer and former academic from Punjab, is the main convict in the September 1993 car-bomb attack outside the Youth Congress headquarters on Raisina Road in New Delhi. The explosion killed nine people and injured several others, including then Youth Congress President M. S. Bitta. The attack was attributed to Khalistan-linked militancy at the height of insurgency-related violence in North India.

Bhullar was tried before a designated court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case relied substantially on a confessional statement recorded by the police under TADA procedures, a feature that later attracted sustained criticism from legal scholars and human-rights groups.

On 25 August 2001, the TADA court sentenced Bhullar to death. In 2002, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld both the conviction and the death sentence by a 2–1 majority, with the dissenting judge holding that the confession was unreliable and that Bhullar deserved acquittal.

Commutation of Death Sentence and Mental Health Concerns

In March 2014, the Supreme Court commuted Bhullar’s death sentence to life imprisonment, citing two decisive factors: the extraordinary delay in the disposal of his mercy petition and his severe mental illness, diagnosed as schizophrenia.

The Court held that executing a prisoner suffering from such a condition, after years of delay, would violate constitutional protections against cruel and inhuman punishment.

Following the commutation, Bhullar was transferred from Tihar Jail to Central Jail, Amritsar, and began serving his life term there. Over the years, he has received psychiatric treatment and has periodically been granted parole, often on medical grounds.

Terrorism-Related Conviction, Not Sedition

It is also important to clarify the legal nature of Bhullar’s conviction. His liability arises from terrorism-related offences under TADA, along with corresponding IPC provisions for murder and conspiracy. He has never been convicted of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC.

All major judicial and government documents consistently describe him as a terror convict in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case, and subsequent proceedings concerning parole, remission, or release have continued to treat his case within that framework.

Other Cases, Discharges, and Bail in Punjab Matters

Apart from the 1993 Delhi blast, Bhullar was named in several cases in Punjab during the early 1990s, mostly under TADA, the Arms Act, and the Explosives Act. In many of these matters, courts ultimately discharged or acquitted him due to lack of evidence.

A notable example is a 1992 Batala case, in which a designated TADA court discharged Bhullar and others in 2016. Another long-pending TADA case from 1995, relating to alleged recovery of explosives, saw a challan filed more than two decades later.

Bhullar was granted bail in that case in 2016, which media reports at the time highlighted as clearing the last pending TADA prosecution against him — but crucially, this bail had no bearing on his life sentence in the 1993 Delhi blast case.

Life Imprisonment and the Limits of Judicial Intervention

Indian law treats a life sentence as imprisonment for the entire natural life of the convict, unless the government chooses to grant remission.

Courts have repeatedly held that they cannot order premature release on their own; at most, they can direct the executive to reconsider a remission request if the decision appears arbitrary or inadequately reasoned.

In Bhullar’s case, the SRB has already rejected his plea for early release multiple times. By early 2023, at least six applications had been turned down, with another kept pending. In December 2023, while the SRB approved remission for some life convicts, Bhullar’s request was again rejected on the ground that his offence involved “anti-national or terrorist activities.”

A Familiar Pattern Repeated in February 2026

The February 10, 2026 decision fits squarely into this established pattern. It reflects a continued executive assessment that, notwithstanding his long incarceration, medical condition, and compliance during parole, the nature and gravity of the crime remain overriding considerations against premature release.

For supporters of Bhullar, the decision underscores what they see as the limits of compassion within India’s remission framework. For the State, it represents a reaffirmation of the principle that terrorism-related convictions warrant exceptional caution in matters of early release.

Conclusion: Law, Mercy, and an Unresolved Debate

Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s case sits at the intersection of terrorism law, executive discretion, mental-health jurisprudence, and humanitarian appeal. The February 2026 SRB decision does not change his legal status, nor does it reopen his conviction. It simply reiterates the State’s position that his life sentence should continue to run its full course.

What remains unresolved is the broader moral and policy question: how a constitutional democracy balances mercy and security, rehabilitation and deterrence, in cases where punishment has already stretched across decades. For now, at least, the law — as interpreted and applied by the executive — has spoken once again, and it has spoken firmly against remission.

February 10, 2026