Whether S. 479 BNSS Limiting Maximum Detention Period Of Undertrials Apply Retrospectively? Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response
Gyanvi Khanna
13 Aug 2024 1:24 PM GMT
The Supreme Court today (on August 13), asked the Union to clarify whether Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure- would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country. This provision provides the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.
Section 479 BNSS corresponds to Section 436A CrPC.
This issue came up while the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta were hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated to address the issue of overcrowding of prisons in India.
Amicus Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal apprised that one of the mandates of the Undertrial Review Committee was to release the prisoner if he/she has undergone half of the sentence. At this, he pointed out that there is a relaxation for first-time offenders (who have never been convicted of any offence in the past). They shall be released if he/she has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period prescribed for that offence (Section 479).
He submitted that if the said provision is to be implemented in letter and spirit, it itself helps in addressing the overcrowding in prisons.
Against this backdrop, he asked whether the Act would have retrospective effect. When the Court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, she requested the Court for some time.
The Court acceded and ordered: “ASG submits that she may be granted time to obtain instructions from the department and file an affidavit clarifying that the aforesaid position as also the retrospectivity and its application of the said provision to all the undertrial across the country.” Stating thus, the court listed the matter after two weeks for this limited purpose. We think that will lighten the burden at this moment that is placed on jails., Justice Kohli said before parting.
Earlier, the Court passed a detailed order in a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated to address the issue of overcrowding of prisons in India. The Court directed the States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to file a fresh affidavit after taking into account the suggestions made by Aggarwal.
The suggestions made by Amicus and the order passed underscored the need for the states to come up with effective and timely actions in order to alleviate the issue of overcrowding in prisons.
Today, Agarwal informed that 13 states have not filed their compliance affidavit as ordered by the Court. In view of the submission, the Court granted time to these States to file their affidavit by September 30, 2024.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
