Rejection Of Remission Must Be Immediately Conveyed To Prisoners To Enable Them To Seek Legal Aid : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on September 10 heard the suo moto plea instituted to issue a comprehensive policy strategy for the grant of bail to prisoners. The Court while taking notice of the list of States that were asked for compliance reports, issued further directions for States that are yet to comply with the orders. It also noted that the rejection of the remission application must be immediately informed to the prisoner.

The Court has reiterated its intention to lay down guidelines for the premature release of prisoners under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its corresponding Section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 in light of the non-uniform policies of States. 

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih is hearing a suo moto case which was initiated after the Supreme Court recognised that there is a lack of uniformity in the remission policy of different States. It was informed that more than 50 percent of prisoners in various jails are undertrial and are languishing in prisons despite having served maximum punishment and that they should have been released on bail under Section 436A CrPC after having served 1/2 of the maximum punishment prescribed.

The Court has earlier passed directions to avoid delay in the release of prisoners who have secured bail orders and that the bail conditions imposed by the Courts must be reasonable.

Compliance with directions so far

On May 3, the Supreme Court directed Jharkhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Telangana to supply data on premature release to amicus curiae Senior Advocate Liz Mathew.

The Court was informed that in terms of the data, Uttar Pradesh is the worst. 

The Court directed Mathew to file additional notes after analysing the data received from various states. 

On September 10, amicus Mathew informed the Court that Haryana and Karnataka have mostly complied with the court's order of July 7 and other subsequent orders.

There are 16 cases in Karnataka and 2 cases in Haryana which require concurrence of the MHA. On this, the Court directed that the States must sent reminder to the Secretariat of the MHA. Whereas, MHA is directed to consider the proposal and decide on concurrence within 2 months.

Manipur

For Manipur, Mathew informed that some life convicts are languishing in jail for 25 years and suffer from unsoundness of mind. The counsel representing Manipur informed the court that the State is planning to constitute a Medical Board for their assessment.

Mathew informed that there are 6 cases of eligible prisoners for remission out of which 1 case of prisoner convicted in Court marshal.

The Court directed State-Level Review Communicate to seek the necessary information from MHA within 1 month.

As for the 5 prisoners, they are of unsound mind and their families have not come forward to cooperate. They continue to be detained in jail.

The Court directed the State of Manipur to constitute a Medical Board of psychiatrists, psychologists and other experts to examine 5 prisoners. A detailed report of their mental health and the nature of the treatment they require should be given. The Medical Board shall recommend those prisoners who are required to be transferred to a medical establishment. 

The compliance should be filed within 1 month to the office of amicus Mathew.

Tamil Nadu

The Court noted that there is hardly any compliance. Out of 264 eligible cases for remission, 84 cases were decided, and 63 are pending before the State.

The Court recorded a default on the part of the State and directed them to ensure compliance immediately. 

Arunachal Pradesh

The Court was informed that 1 prisoner is eligible for remission. The counsel for the State informed that the State Level did not recommend him as he poses a threat to society.

The Court questioned if the decision of rejection is informed to the prisoner, to which the counsel said it would seek instructions in this regard.

The Court stated that the State-level advisory committee did not recommend the prisoner. This should be communicated to him. Jail authorities should inform him so that the State level Legal Services Authority can provide legal aid.

Assam

The Court was informed that in not a single case relief has been granted. 43 cases are recommended for premature release with the State Government.

The Court recorded non-compliance of the State of Assam. It noted that 83 cases are pending for the lack of documents. It suggested that if the State policy requires a bulk of documents, the policy needs to be rationalised.

The Court has sought directions from the State within one month.

West Bengal

For West Bengal, as many as 793 Iife convicts are eligible for remission. However, the Court was informed that there are constant delays. 

The Court recorded that there was a delay at every stage. Further, it found that the recommendations made by the state-level review board are being again sent to the judicial department.

The Government is directed to explain why there are only 44 cases decided yet. It found that the delay could be the result of a lack of coordination between the authorities. Therefore, it directed that a senior office shall be nominated as a nodal officer to coordinate with all State authorities in order to ensure compliance. 

The State must file a compliance within 1 month through the Nodal Officer.

Directions for all States /UT

All States and UT are directed to ensure that the decision of rejection of the remission shall be immediately provided to the concerned prisoner so that NALSA can provide legal aid in cases where required.

"Necessary to make prisoner aware of his right to challenge the order of rejection of remission," the Court stated.

Next is compliance from Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa Chhattisgarh, and Himachal Pradesh on October 22.

The aspect of guiding prisoners on the rejection of their remission and conditions to be incorporated in S. 432 and 473 will also be dealt with. It directs Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi to file compliance.

The Court noted that  Delhi has taken the official stand that since the Chief Minister is in jail, and no cases will be taken. The Court said that this issue needs to be dealt with. 3 weeks were given for compliance.

For E-prison module issue, the Court will hear on 25 September.

Case details: IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021