Supreme Court Asks Jammu & Kashmir UT To Frame Policy On Premature Release Of Convicts
Through a significant order, the Supreme Court recently nudged the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to frame policy for premature release of convicts, considering that framing of the policy lies within the exclusive domain of the UT and it has no policy for remission on the basis of period of incarceration.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while dealing...
Through a significant order, the Supreme Court recently nudged the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to frame policy for premature release of convicts, considering that framing of the policy lies within the exclusive domain of the UT and it has no policy for remission on the basis of period of incarceration.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while dealing with the case of a convict undergoing life sentence for the offense under Section 302 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was convicted for the murder of 3 colleagues and has spent about 18 years in custody.
The Court noted that the J&K counsel was opposing the petitioner's premature release solely on the ground that there was no policy framed by the UT for premature release on the basis of period of incarceration. Being of the view that the said ground may be untenable, the Court said that UT of J&K would be well-advised to frame the requisite policy.
"It seems to us that such a ground may not be tenable, as the formulation of policy falls within the exclusive domain of the State and, therefore, the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir is well advised to formulate an appropriate policy."
The Chief Secretary of the J&K was directed to take up the matter with the Competent Authority for taking a policy decision as may be deemed fit by the Competent Authority. A compliance report was also instructed to be filed.
The facts of the case, as claimed, were thus: the petitioner-convict was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2006. He had taken leave to go home to attend his younger sister's marriage, but some senior officials scolded him in front of the whole battalion. The petitioner got so infuriated with this berating, that he shot dead three Sepoys, including a senior officer.
He was arrested on the date of the incident itself, ie 03.04.2006. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 11/13.08.2012. His Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 31.03.2022, against which he filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The said petition was disposed of on 29.08.2022, noting that if the petitioner was eligible for premature release as per the Policy, Rules or Regulations, he could apply to the competent authority.
Thereafter, in 2023, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking a direction for premature release on the ground that he had undergone actual sentence of 17 years and 8 months without remission. It was averred that there was no policy formulated by the UT of J&K for premature release of convicts, due to which the petitioner's claim had not been considered in terms of the direction issued by this Court.
This writ petition was disposed of by the top Court with liberty to the petitioner to approach the J&K High Court for a direction regarding framing of requisite remission policy. Even otherwise, in absence of a policy, he was given liberty to make out a case for premature release.
"It appears to us that the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to approach the High Court of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The petitioner, if so advised, may firstly seek a direction for formulation of a policy which, of course, falls within the domain of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner may pursue the formation of such policy decision at par with those prevailing in other States and Union Territories. Secondly, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make out a case for his premature release, even in the absence of Rules/Regulations/Policies in this regard."
Vide the present petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court again seeking premature release. This time, the Court specifically directed the UT of J&K to take up the matter and called a compliance report.
Case Title: ANAND KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, W.P.(Crl.) No. 335/2024