Read Time: 09 minutes
"The applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously. Those cases which have already been processed and in respect of which reports have been submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order", Court has said.
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider for premature release of five hundred and twelve convicts undergoing imprisonment for life in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, known as the “Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January)”.
The Top Court has further clarified that the restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced to the said policy by an amendment on 28 July 2021, will stand deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022 and hence, no case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground.
In the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any of the amendments which have been brought about subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant of premature release would be considered by granting benefit in terms of more liberal amended para/clause of the policies, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has ordered.
Court has added that all decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases before it would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy.
In a batch of cases that emanated from Uttar Pradesh, five hundred and twelve convicts who are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life seeking premature release approached the Top Court.
The convicts had challenged the amended policy whereby a requirement that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years was challenged by way of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court.
The challenge was inter alia on the ground that the plea for premature release must be considered on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of conviction and that a subsequent policy which operates to restrict the ambit of a policy prevailing on the date of conviction must not be allowed to obstruct the plea for release.
Moreover, it was urged that the requirement that a convict cannot be considered for premature release before the age of sixty would violate the right to life under Article 21 by subjecting a convict to long years of incarceration.
The Top Court noted that the implementation of the said policy for premature release had to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
"Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few or no resources. Lack of literacy, education and social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies. Once the state has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all eligible convicts. The constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in terms of the policy....", observed the bench.
Accordingly, the Court also directed the District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh to take necessary steps in coordination with the jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the applicable policies, would be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from consideration.
These steps, to be taken by DLSAs, would include but not be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking a status report on all 512 prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons falling under their jurisdiction and ensuring its submission by relevant authorities within eight weeks of this order as well as on an annual basis.
Court also set out time frames for completing such exercise by the State of UP.
Bench also clarified that where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail, the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release.
Case Title: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Please Login or Register
