The government of Odisha formally informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that it had rejected the remission plea of Rabindra Kumar Pal, better known as Dara Singh. Singh is serving a life sentence for the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons, Philip, aged 10, and Timothy, aged 6.
Supreme Court Hearing and Court Directions
A two‑judge bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Singh’s petition, which challenges the prolonged delay by the state in deciding his request for premature release. Earlier in the proceedings, the Court had sharply criticized Odisha for the continued postponement of its decision.
During today’s hearing, counsel for the State of Odisha conveyed that the competent authority had issued an order on 31 August 2026 rejecting Singh’s remission request. The order was placed on record, and a copy was supplied to the petitioner’s counsel.
Following the submission, the bench granted Singh’s counsel, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, permission to amend the petition in order to formally contest the state’s rejection. The judges instructed, “Take a copy of the order. Take whatever grounds you want to challenge it. Amend your plea and argue.” The Court set the next hearing for three weeks later, allowing Singh’s counsel two weeks to file the amended application.
Background of the Conviction and Prior Appeals
Singh was convicted for leading a mob that set fire to a station wagon in Manoharpur, Odisha, in January 1999. The blaze killed Graham Staines and his two sons while they were sleeping inside the vehicle. The trial court sentenced Singh to death in 2003. In 2005, the Orissa High Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, a decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 2011.
After serving more than two decades behind bars, Singh filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking remission of his life sentence. His counsel argued that Singh, now over 60 years old, had spent more than 24 years in prison without parole and had demonstrated reformation.
The Supreme Court, noting the state’s inaction, had previously granted multiple adjournments to give Odisha time to decide on the remission request. Despite these extensions, the state failed to communicate any decision, prompting the Court to issue strong criticism. On 8 September, the bench specifically rebuked the Odisha administration for keeping the remission plea pending for over two years and warned that senior state officials could be summoned if the Sentence Review Board did not reach a decision.
Today’s submission marks the first time the state has placed a formal order on record, indicating a rejection of the remission plea. With the order now part of the court record, Singh’s legal team will have the opportunity to amend their challenge and present arguments against the state’s decision at the next hearing.
The case underscores the lengthy judicial process surrounding high‑profile murder convictions in India, especially those involving communal or missionary contexts. It also highlights the role of the Supreme Court in monitoring state compliance with procedural timelines for remission and parole applications.
Legal analysts note that the outcome of Singh’s amended petition could set a precedent for how remission pleas are evaluated in cases where the convicted individual has served a substantial portion of a life term. The next hearing, scheduled three weeks from now, will determine whether Singh’s challenge to the state’s rejection will proceed and what legal grounds will be examined.
Be First to Comment