This paper critically examines the functioning of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) in Delhi within the framework of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and the constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The study addresses the central question whether the SRB, which is intended to operationalize the reformative theory of punishment through periodic review of life convicts eligible for premature release, functions in a manner consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. A doctrinal methodology has been adopted, based on an analysis of constitutional provisions, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Lt. Governor’s Policy dated 16 July 2004, the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. The study finds that, although the legal framework is comprehensive and reform-oriented, its implementation is marked by significant deficiencies. The SRB frequently fails to hold mandatory quarterly meetings, resulting in prolonged delays in the consideration of eligible cases. Its recommendations often rely disproportionately on the gravity of the original offence and police objections, while overlooking relevant factors such as conduct in prison, parole performance, age, health, family circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation. Judicial decisions have repeatedly characterised such practices as arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles of fair procedure. The paper recommends strict adherence to quarterly meeting requirements, mandatory speaking orders, time-bound submission of reports, reduced dependence on police opinions, and institutional reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and constitutional compliance.