Summary
Despite the directions in Rashidul Jafar on premature release of life convicts in Uttar Pradesh, eligible convicts kept petitioning the Supreme Court because their cases were not being considered; the Director General of Prisons' affidavit showed 2,228 lifers eligible after fourteen years and forty-two of fifty grievances before the Court still pending at various levels, and the amicus showed that for pre-2018 convictions the authorities awaited sixteen years instead of applying the fourteen-year rule in force at conviction. The Court held that the State is bound by its own Rules and policy, that each case is decided on the law at conviction subject to a more beneficial later policy, and that an arbitrary pick-and-choose approach hurts the poorest; all pending cases were to be decided by 30 April 2023.
Issues
- Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh may defer consideration of premature release of life convicts eligible under the Rules and policy in force on the date of their conviction by applying a later, more restrictive requirement.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4, Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1938 and Rules, 1938A life convict is eligible for consideration for release on licence after serving fourteen years, with or without remissions depending on whether Section 433A CrPC applies; convicts sentenced before the Standing Policy of 1 August 2018 are entitled to consideration under this rule rather than a later sixteen-year requirement. (¶¶ 3, 12, 13)
- Sections 432 and 433A CrPC; Article 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Constitution of IndiaNominal and infirmity rolls are prepared under Section 432 read with Section 433A and the Jail Manual, and mercy petitions under Article 161 are decided under the State's Standing Policy of 2018 as amended in 2022, which lifted the bar on considering convicts below sixty years of age. (¶¶ 4, 6)
Held
- Following State of Haryana v. Jagdish and State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, a case for premature release is governed by the policy on the date of conviction, but a subsequently liberalised policy must be applied where it is more beneficial; having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy, the State is bound by them, cannot adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking cases, and must apply the provisions equally, efficiently and transparently so that persons lacking resources and awareness do not suffer most. (¶¶ 5, 6, 12, 13)
- Of the fifty prisoners whose cases were raised, three were released, one acquitted, one released on completing sentence, two rejected and one found ineligible; five cases pend before District Magistrates, twenty-five at Prisons Headquarters and twelve with the State Government, all of which must be disposed of by 30 April 2023. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
Result
Directions issued; all pending cases for premature release to be disposed of on or before 30.04.2023 in terms of the Court's directions, with a compliance affidavit by the Director General of Prisons; Miscellaneous Application listed for verification of compliance on 04.05.2023.