'Remission To Be Considered Without Application Once Convict Is Eligible' : Supreme Court Isses Slew Of Directions To UP Govt On Premature Release

In a batch of petitions challenging the 2021 amendment carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the Standing Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts, 2018, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, passed directions regarding premature release. The decision of the Apex Court would have an impact on the consideration of the remission plea of about 512 convicts who are undergoing life imprisonment.

On 1st August, 2018, the State Government had issued a remission policy for life convicts to be released on the occasion of every Republic Day. The policy was issued with the approval of the Governor of the State under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Later, in July, 2021, apart from the number of years of imprisonment undergone by the convicts, an additional eligibility criteria was introduced. By an amendment to the 2018 policy, para 2(b) was modified so as to provide that the convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be released until they attain the age of 60 years. However later this additional criteria was dropped.

On Tuesday, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli passed the following directions -

(i)All cases for premature release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life in the present batch of cases shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, subject to the observations which are contained herein. The restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021, stands deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground;

In the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any of the amendments which have been brought about subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant of premature release would be considered by granting benefit in terms of more liberal amended para/clause of the policies. All decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy;

(iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1 August 2018, no application is required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. Further, through amendment dated 28 July 2021, para 3(i), which included convicts undergoing life imprisonment who have not filed application for pre-mature release in the prohibited category, has specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all cases of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State of Uttar Pradesh who are eligible for being considered for premature release in terms of the policy, including but not confined to the five hundred and twelve prisoners involved in the present batch of cases, shall be considered in terms of the procedure for premature release stipulated in the policy;

(iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination with the jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the applicable policies, as noticed above, would be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from consideration.

(v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would, include but not be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking status report on all prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the format of table prepared in Annexure-A covering the details mentioned in para 13 of this judgment and ensuring its submission by relevant authorities within eight weeks of this order as well as on an annual basis. Further, DLSAs would utilize this status report to monitor and engage with respective authorities to ensure the implementation of our directions to ensure premature release in terms of applicable policies in all eligible cases of convicts undergoing life sentence on a continuous basis;

(vi) The applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously. Those cases which have already been processed and in respect of which reports have been submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Cases of eligible life convicts who are (i) above the age of seventy years; or (ii) suffering from terminal ailments shall be taken up on priority and would be disposed of within a period of two months. The Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall, within a period of two weeks, lay down the priorities according to which all other pending cases shall be disposed of. All other cases shall, in any event, be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of this order; and

(vii) Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by the orders of this Court, the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release.

Senior Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, appearing for the State of U.P. apprised the Bench, prior to the policy of 8th August, 2018, there was no written policy for early release for life convicts.

As per the policy of 8th August, 2018, proposals for premature release of life convicts are to be submitted to the Zonal Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) on 15th November every year. He would inspect all the requests. Thereafter it would be sent to the Committee constituted in terms of Para 8 of the policy in order to deal with all cases of early release. Upon consideration the committee is required to submit its recommendation to the Government by 15th December, which would then take decision on the basis of prescribed procedure.

In July 2021, the amendment setting out the additional eligibility criteria was brought about. Consequently, the amendment was challenged before the Apex Court. The retrospective application of the 2021 amendment was assailed. In State of Haryana v. Jagdish the Apex Court had held that the premature release plea had to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the day the accused was convicted by the Trial Court.

On 27.05.2022, the policy was again amended and the requirement that the premature release would only be considered after one attains 60 years of age was removed.

The Court also made certain other significant remarks as follows :

Due consideration of remission policy must be given to all eligible convicts :

"The implementation of the policy for premature release has to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few or no resources. Lack of literacy, education and social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies. Once the state has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all eligible convicts. The constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in terms of the policy"

Remission of eligible prisoners must be considered diligently 

"The prison administration, legal services authorities at the district and state level and officers of the police department and the state must diligently ensure that cases of eligible prisoners are considered on the basis of policy parameters. We have gained a distinct impression, based on the cases which have come before the court here and even earlier that there is a general apathy towards ensuring that the rights which have been made available to convicts who have served out their sentences in terms of the policy are realized. This results in the deprivation of liberty of those who are entitled to be released. They languish in overcrowded jails. Their poverty, illiteracy and disabilities occasioned by long years of incarceration are compounded by the absence of supportive social and legal structures. The promise of equality in our Constitution would not be fulfilled if liberty were to be conditional on an individual's resources, which unfortunately many of these cases provide hard evidence of. This situation must change and hence this court has had to step in. We now proceed to formulate peremptory directions".

The Court passed the directions in a batch of writ petitions. . Advocates Mr Z U Khan, Mr. Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Mr. Ashish Choudhury and Mr Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AoR appeared in the lead cases.

[Case Title: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P. And Anr. WP(Crl) No. 336/2019]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Remission - Premature Release - Supreme Court says due consideration of remission policy must be given to all eligible prisoners- Issues slew of directions to UP Govt-  Holds that application by eligible prisoner must not be insisted- Benefit of policy which is more beneficial to the prisoner must by given.

Click here to read/download the order