Modalities For Timely Consideration Of Premature Release Of Prisoners In UP Need Fine Tuning : Supreme Court
In a matter concerning remission of convicts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala directed a meeting to be held between between the Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), counsels in the matter, Director General, Prisons (DGP), and Principal Secretary, Prisons to...
In a matter concerning remission of convicts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala directed a meeting to be held between between the Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), counsels in the matter, Director General, Prisons (DGP), and Principal Secretary, Prisons to fine tune the modalities to be prescribed for ensuring the timely consideration for cases of premature release.
In the last hearing, the court had noted that the arbitrary application of different yardsticks for similarly placed convicts would give rise to a situation where the persons lacking resources would suffer the most. The court had directed the Director General (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit showing steps taken in pursuance of the judgement in Rashidul Jafar v. State of UP, in which many directions were issued regarding remission of prisoners.
In today's proceedings, amicus curiae Advocate Gaurav Agarwal submitted before the court that the DGP for the state of UP may ensure that all details of life convicts in state prisons are filled in the online portal and entered into the software. Further, all details of eligible life convicts are sent to prison authorities and reflected on the e-prison module. At this juncture, the bench enquired who was incharge of doing the same. Agarwal responded–
"The District Magistrate is the final authority who has the prison report and the trial court report. Then he makes a decision as to whether the convict is to be released or he/she will be a threat to the society. He also considers if victim's family is in same village or not. Like if the convict is from Aligarh then the District Magistrate of Aligarh will be the person in charge."
CJI DY Chandrachud asked–
"How do we obviate the delays on part of the ADJ and the District magistrate. We can pass an order, but will it be followed?"
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of UP Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad stated that the process would take some time.
Eventually the bench, upon discussion, decided that it would be better for the modalities to be fine tuned further. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked–
"If there can be one more meeting with NALSA and if the administrative judges can have one meeting every month with DLSA Secretary and the district magistrate, it would be good. The administrative judge will chair the meeting. We can say once a month the meeting shall be held."
The following order was accordingly passed–
"During the course of the hearing, a note for discussion has been circulated. The modalities to be prescribed for ensuring the timely consideration for cases of premature release should be fine tuned. A meeting should be convened between the Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), counsels in the matter, Director General, Prisons (DGP), and Principal Secretary, Prisons. An updated note shall be presented before this court on 15th May for final orders to be passed."
Case Title: Rajkumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh | MA 2169/2022 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 36/2022