Supreme Court Rebukes UP Officers For Blaming State's Advocate For Delay In Processing Remission; Seeks Chief Secretary's Personal Affidavit

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 9) issued notice to the former Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration and Reforms Department of Uttar Pradesh asking him to show cause why proceedings for criminal contempt and perjury should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit to explain the delay in considering a remission application.The Court also asked the Chief Secretary of the State Government to file a personal affidavit to explain the conduct of the State and its officers for delaying the file. The Court also recorded its dissatisfaction that the officers attempted to shift the blame on the advocates appearing for the State.From the last several proceedings, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Ok and Augustine George Masih observed that the affidavits filed by the Principal Secretary contained contradictory statements from his earlier stance in which he stated that the Chief Minister's Secretariat did not accept the file of the convict for remission since Model Code of Conduct on the occasion of Lok Sabha election was applicable. Brief facts on the issue As per the brief facts, the issue arose after the Supreme Court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government on April 1 to consider the grant of permanent remission to the convict as per its policy. Subsequently, on May 13, the Court clarified that the Code of Conduct should not come in the way of deciding the issue of remission. However, the State authorities made no efforts in deciding the issue attracting the court's wrath for violating its orders.The Court subsequently directed the Principal Secretary of the Prisons Department to appear before the Court via video conference to explain the Government's failure to timely decide the remission plea of the convict. On August 12, the Principal Secretary appearing via video conference claimed that the Chief Minister's Secretariat did not accept the files because the Model Code of Conduct was in place. However, subsequently, he took a stand that the order dated May 13 was not communicated to him by the Standing Council. Today, the bench again reiterated that the Principal Secretary has taken contradictory stands and stated that the court will go into the issue of who exactly is in breach of the Court's order dated May 13.What has transpired so far?Summarising what has transpired so far, Justice Oka stated: "Go to the affidavit filed by this officer on August 25, for the first time, order dated May 13 was communicated. For the first time, on May 25, it was communicated by the Jail Superintendent, Ghaziabad..June 6, the section officer did not open the mail. They waited till the Code of Conduct was over."ASG KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of UP, informed the Court that the officer has been transferred and disciplinary action has been initiated against him and the Section Officer in this regard.However, the Court stated that it would initiate criminal contempt unless the officer came clean. Justice Oka said: "Still if you want to file correct affidavit, as an officer of the court we will give him the opportunity. You have to tell the truth...We will issue a notice of criminal contempt and we will order full-fledged inquiry that when the advocate communicated the order to the Government, why Section Officer was sleeping from 25 May to 6 June and coincidently he wakes up after the Code of Conduct is over."This is a pure violation of the order of this court, Justice Oka remarked. When ASG Nataraj tried reiterating that due action had been taken against the concerned officer, Justice Oka added that the entire State machinery was responsible. He said: "All this is done deliberately. The whole moment the file was paused till June 6 because there was a Code of Conduct. This is in defiance of the order of this Court...He [Principal Secretary] is being made scapegoat by the Government." Justice Oka added that a change of stand by the officer will not make him innocuous.ASG Nataraj pleaded that the Court may not take action this time and it will be ensured that the files are properly communicated to the Government for all future purposes. However, the Court rejected any sort of apology. What did the Supreme Court order? On false affidavit Justice Oka dictating the order said: " We have perused the affidavits of Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh dated 14 August, 2024 and 26 August 2024. Prima facie, it appears to us that the stand taken by him in the affidavit is completely contrary to statements made by him through the video conference on 12 August 2024. The statements have been recorded in the said order. Therefore it appears to us that this officer filed a false affidavit and therefore issue notice to him calling upon to show cause why action or criminal contempt should not be initiated against him and why action should not be initiated against him for perjury. On May 13, this court passed a specific order. On April 1, the court directed UP to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent...

Supreme Court Rebukes UP Officers For Blaming State's Advocate For Delay In Processing Remission; Seeks Chief Secretary's Personal Affidavit

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Rebukes UP Officers For Blaming State's Advocate For Delay In Processing Remission; Seeks Chief Secretary's Personal Affidavit

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers