State cannot take matters of liberty casually: SC to UP govt
According to the court, denial of premature release to persons who were convicted when they were young and have served 20 years or more behind bars would violate their fundamental right protected under Article 14 (equality), if the remission board or the state government considers only the facts present at the time of their conviction
New Delhi: No state can take the matter of liberty casually, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday as it pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for not deciding the remission plea of a convict undergoing life term. State authorities are duty-bound to prioritise matters concerning the liberty of all individuals, including inmates, the top court said, adding a lackadaisical attitude by them would not be acceptable.
A bench of justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal demanded an explanation from the secretary of the Uttar Pradesh home department, adopting a grim view of the delay by the state in complying with its order passed on September 25. By the previous order, the bench had directed the state to consider the plea for grant of permanent remission of applicant Santosh Singh in accordance with the applicable policy and place its decision before the court on November 10. The state, however, did not decide the remission plea by that date nor did it request for more time to do so.
“If you had genuine difficulty in complying with our order by the deadline, you could have asked for extension of time. But you never approached this court. The order of the court is yet to be complied with. We passed the order in September. You didn’t comply nor did you seek an extension of time. It happens only in the Supreme Court. No high court will tolerate such an attitude of a state,” the bench told state’s additional advocate general Garima Prashad.
Prashad informed the court that there were genuine difficulties on the part of the authorities in deciding Singh’s plea by the given date and that the process of considering remission was underway. The senior counsel added the home secretary was present in the court through video-conferencing, as directed by the bench on November 10.
“See, you have still not decided it. And you have not even moved any application for an extension of time. Unless you are going to apply for an extension of time, we are not allowing your plea (to let secretary off the hook),” the bench told Prashad. “You are dealing with the liberty of individuals. We are not going to accept such an attitude. State authorities must give an explanation why they could not comply with our order.”
The bench further asked Prashad as to what stops the state from considering the cases of remission on its own instead of compelling the inmates to move the high court or the Supreme Court after they complete a considerable long time behind bars.
“There has to be a process in place. We want to lay down such a process. Either you come up with a process or we will issue suitable directions. This is why we want your secretary to be here...There are people lying in jail for more than 20-24 years. Such cases should be automatically taken up by the state for consideration,” the court said, fixing the matter on December 11 when the home secretary will have to show up again.
Various benches in the Supreme Court have been repeatedly issuing directions to different state governments for devising a system for considering the remission pleas of the life term convicts after they have undergone a minimum period of 14 years. Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers state governments to frame their own remission policy. A state is further required to consult the Centre if the case concerned has been investigated by a federal agency such as CBI or NIA. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, a state governor is also empowered to grant pardons and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
In September, another bench of the top court had held that denying premature release to convicts who have served extremely long periods of incarceration not only crushes their spirit but also signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. Favouring the grant of remission to prisoners even in heinous cases if they have shown reformation, the court had at the time underlined the need to consider the rehabilitation and reformation of convicts, who, during long incarceration may have transformed and earned the relief of remission by alienating themselves from the persons they were at the time of conviction.
According to the court, denial of premature release to persons who were convicted when they were young and have served 20 years or more behind bars would violate their fundamental right protected under Article 14 (equality) if the remission board or the state government considers only the facts present at the time of their conviction.
In a previous judgment on August 26, the apex court emphasised that the ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformative. It had held that a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of premature release to reformed prisoners, based solely on a trial judge’s opinion, could defeat the purpose of the remission policy.
CrPC requires a state government to obtain the views of the trial court that convicted the prisoner, and that of probation officer and jail officials before a decision on the remission plea is taken. A life term convict becomes entitled to remission only after serving at least 14 years in jail.
Previously, the benches led by chief justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had also laid down an array of guidelines to expedite the manner in which prisoners entitled to remission could have their pleas placed before the remission boards for a speedy disposal.
