This summary highlights the court’s in-depth legal analysis of a case concerning the premature release of a prisoner. The focus is on the court’s interpretation of relevant laws and policies, particularly in the context of the petitioner’s eligibility for remission. The case raises important questions about the application of prison release policies and the rights of long-incarcerated individuals. Follow this blog for insights into the legal intricacies of prisoner rights and policy considerations.
Facts
- The petitioner has approached the court seeking consideration for premature release from prison as per a policy dated 01.8.2018
- The petitioner has cited Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for this purpose
- Despite 17 years having passed, the appeal is still pending adjudication
- Petitioner, along with his brother and father, convicted for offences under IPC.
- Petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court which was rejected.
- Petitioner claimed eligibility for release under U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938.
- Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued a policy for premature release of prisoners, including those sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Petitioner’s release petition was rejected despite meeting all criteria and similar prisoners being released in previous years.
- Despite recommendation for release in 2020 and 2021, petitioner remains incarcerated without reasons provided.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Arguments
- The petitioner’s counsel argues that the 2021 policy, which prescribes the minimum age of 60 years for premature release, should not apply to the petitioner’s case.
- There are doubts expressed about the validity of this clause, as it would mean a young offender of 20 years serving 40 years before being considered for remission.
- Although not required to address this aspect, the Court urges the State Government to reconsider this particular clause within four months.
- The respondent’s counsel mentions that under the 2018 policy, the petitioner’s case would qualify for consideration, while the 2021 policy sets the age requirement at 60 years.
- The Policy for premature release was amended on 28.7.2021, as mentioned in the counter affidavit.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Analysis
- The case of the petitioner should be considered for remission by the Competent Authority within three months.
- The option of seeking suspension of sentence and the provision for remission due to long incarceration are distinct.
- The State Government can examine the case for remission even if an appeal is pending, especially if the petitioner shows lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- Petitioner has served about 22½ years without remission and almost 28 years with remission.
- Bail granted to the petitioner in the meantime pending further consideration.
- Writ Petition allowed with parties bearing their own costs.
- Direction given for consideration of petitioner’s case for remission within three months.
- Direction given for consideration of the amendment to the Policy of 2021 within four months.
Case Title: MATA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. (2022 INSC 123)
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000256 / 2021
