Jail Superintendents Should Make Special Efforts To Identify Women Prisoners Eligible For Release U/s. 479 Of BNSS: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 19) directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

“Although the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS are gender neutral, it is also necessary for this Court to say that special efforts should be made to identify women prisoners who are entitled to release under the beneficial provision. The concerned Jail Superintendents where the women prisoners are lodged should therefore pay personal attention to the female prisoners, who might have become eligible for the release benefits, under Section 479 of the BNSS”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also directed the authorities to verify and update jail records as there may be cases where a person is accused of heinous crimes but later charges have been framed for a lesser offence, making him eligible for release.

“The concerned authorities must also take care to avoid confusion for an undertrial, who might initially be charged with a heinous crime entailing life imprisonment or the death penalty but against whom charges have been framed subsequently, for a lesser offence. This is being flagged as there could be cases of prisoners whose jail records may not have been updated with charges being framed for lesser crimes”, the Court emphasised.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition concerning overcrowding in the prisons across India. The Court on August 23, 2024 held that the beneficial provision of Section 479 of BNSS would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country, i.e., to all undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. Section 479 aims to reduce prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners, with exceptions for those charged with heinous crimes.

The Court noted that 27 states and union territories submitted responses on the implementation of Section 479. However, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tripura, and Goa failed to comply. The Court criticized these states for neglecting the benefits of Section 479, which aims to alleviate the burden on undertrials.

“Despite the fact that the last order passed by this Court (on 22.10.2024) was communicated to the Chief Secretaries of all the State and Union Territories, the non-filing of response by the concerned States shows that perhaps the concerned States/UTs are lax in ensuring that the benefits of Section 479 of the BNSS are availed by the deserving category of undertrials”, the Court observed.

Section 479 of the BNSS mandates the release of undertrials who have served half the maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged offense, except those facing charges that could result in life imprisonment or the death penalty. First-time offenders, who have no prior convictions, are eligible for release after serving one-third of the maximum sentence. Jail Superintendents must monitor the eligibility of undertrials and submit applications for their release to the courts.

On Tuesday, the Court reviewed the progress of implementing Section 479 and examined a note prepared by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal and NALSA counsel Rashmi Nandakumar.

The Court identified three critical issues based on the Amicus Curiae's note. It stressed the need for accurate identification of eligible undertrials, prompt referral of cases to courts, and follow-up to obtain release orders.

The Court noted that the reports submitted to the Amicus Curiae by the respective states were presented in various formats, which lacked clarity and made it difficult to understand why release orders have not been issued, even after identifying eligible undertrials and forwarding their cases to the Court. It noted that reports from West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh provided clear and structured data, setting an example for other states.

The bench directed states and union territories to submit subsequent reports in a uniform format. The required details include the name of the prison, the name of the prisoner (and their father/husband), crime number and sections, date of jail admission, the maximum sentence, total time spent in prison (including transfers), the date the application was sent to the Court, the dates of referral from prison to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and from DLSA to the Court, date of release, the reason for any denial of bail, and any remarks.

Highlighting the importance of continuous review, the Court had on October 22 directed Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) in each district to actively coordinate with Jail Superintendents. It had directed District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) to mobilize panel advocates and paralegal volunteers for regular updates on eligible undertrials. The bench emphasized that the process must remain ongoing, as eligibility thresholds can change frequently.

The Court urged all stakeholders to ensure that the benefits of Section 479 reach all eligible prisoners. It directed the non-compliant states and union territories to submit their responses within two weeks and scheduled the next hearing for December 10, 2024.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406/2013

Case Title – In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908