'Won't Tolerate IAS Officer Lying To Court As Per Convenience Of His Masters' : Supreme Court Rebukes UP Prisons Secretary

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 27) sharply criticized the Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration and Reforms Department of Uttar Pradesh for submitting a false affidavit regarding the progress of a remission plea of a convict.

“We will not tolerate IAS officer lying to this court and changing the stands as per convenience of his masters”, Justice Abhay Oka orally remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had last week noted that the affidavit contained statements that contradicted Principal Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh's original stance that the Chief Minister's Secretariat delayed the processing of the file due to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

During the previous hearing, the Court had warned him of contempt proceedings and allowed him to file an additional affidavit if he wished to clarify his position. The Court had also noted that Singh's original stance appeared to be true from the record of the movement of the file.

On August 12, 2024, the Principal Secretary while appearing in the Court through video conferencing had claimed that the Chief Minister's Secretariat did not accept the file regarding the remission plea due to the MCC. However, in subsequent affidavit, he claimed that the Standing Counsel for UP did not communicate to him a court order dated May 13, 2024. By this order, the Court granted one month's time to UP government to decide the remission plea and clarified that MCC will not come in the way of deciding remission.

During the proceedings today, Justice Oka said that the state must take action. “Some officer must go to jail otherwise this will not stop…Unless you take action against this man, we are not going to spare him. The state must take action.”

Singh has claimed that he inadvertently took the earlier stance regarding the CM Secretariat not accepting files due to MCC. He said that this happened because of a communication gap when he appeared in the Court via VC.

Justice Oka disbelieved this explanation, stating, “we cannot believe that you (Singh) did not hear us properly. We repeated the question thrice.”

Justice Oka added, “He (Singh) is not illiterate person. He is very senior secretary of the government of UP, and we remember on that day (August 12) he could hear whatever we said in open court.”

“Obviously either he was under pressure or he doesn't understand anything...We can draw our own inference, we know how governments function”, Justice Oka remarked.

The Court also questioned why the documents were not immediately forwarded after the order dated May 13, 2024, and noted that the file was not even sent to the concerned minister.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj assured the Court that the matter had been brought to the highest levels of the state government. However, Justice Oka insisted that unless action is taken by the State, the Court would not be lenient.

The bench also did not believe the claim that the lawyer did not communicate the order dated May 13, 2024. “We will call upon the lawyer to file an affidavit. We will go deep into this...You (Singh) are making serious allegation that for 15 days you were unaware of the order”, Justice Oka said.

Today, the Court took a subsequent affidavit filed by Singh on record and listed the matter on September 9, 2024. “We will go through the affidavit, if necessary we will take contempt action”, Justice Oka said.

This latest affidavit filed by Singh states that the delay in considering the remission application was unintentional and attributes it to various factors. It further mentions that the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh has issued categorical order that if undue delay is caused on the part of any officer in forwarding/considering the file then disciplinary action will be taken against such officer. Singh also tendered an unconditional apology, claiming that inadvertent communication gap caused the delay in the present case.

Previously, on August 20, 2024 the Supreme Court had admonished Singh for submitting contradictory statements in the affidavit and also granted temporary bail to the petitioner and directed him to be presented before the Trial Court to set appropriate bail conditions.

Advocate CK Rai (AOR) and advocate Arvind Tiwari represented the petitioner.

ASG KM Nataraj and AAG Garima Prashad appeared for State of UP.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2022

Case Title – Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.