The recent legal analysis of the policy on premature release of convicts sheds light on the paramount importance of upholding constitutional guarantees. With a focus on Articles 14 and 21, the court’s thorough examination ensures that rights and equality are at the forefront of decision-making. This blog delves into the intricate legal analysis that underpins the implementation of policies affecting convicts and their fundamental rights.
Facts
- Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a policy on premature release of convicts
- Policy allows for release of convicts with Governor’s approval under Article 161
- Convicts serving life imprisonment will not be released until age of sixty
- Committee to submit recommendations annually for premature release of life imprisonment convicts
- 512 convicts in Uttar Pradesh seek premature release from life imprisonment
- The policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment is amended on 28 July 2021.
- A Committee is formed to examine and dispose of all cases according to the policy.
- Categories of convicts entitled to premature release are outlined, including para 2(b) which specifies eligible convicts.
- Prohibited categories are listed in para 3 of the policy, with clause (vi) being one of them.
- Each Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Prisons is tasked with evaluating proposals to ensure eligibility criteria are met.
- Proposals are to be submitted annually by 15 November to the Inspector General of Prisons, who then forwards them to the Government by 30 November.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Learned counsel representing the petitioners presented arguments
- Ms. Garima Prashad, AAG was also present during the proceedings
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Para 2(b) was amended on 28 July 2021
- Convicts falling within the prohibited category set out in para 3(vi) of the original policy document were granted a relaxation in the policy dated 28 July 2021
- Para 2(g) of the amended policy dated 28 July 2021 is specified
- A requirement was imposed that a convict undergoing life imprisonment would not be eligible for premature release until reaching the age of sixty years
- This led to petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution being filed before the Court
- The policy for premature release must be implemented objectively and transparently to uphold constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
- Consideration must be given to all eligible convicts once the state formulates its policy for premature release.
- The right to life and personal liberty must not be compromised by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release.
- The policy was amended to remove the requirement for convict applications and instead places the responsibility on state officers to consider eligible prisoners.
- The age restriction of sixty for premature release has been removed to prevent violating the right to life under Article 21.
- Details of 512 prisoners requiring consideration under the policy were submitted for verification.
- There is a general apathy towards ensuring the rights of convicts who have served their sentences are realized.
- A tabulated statement was required to be prepared for disposal of cases, detailing offenses, judgment dates, imprisonment periods, bail status, and application status for premature release.
- Legal services authorities and law enforcement must diligently consider eligible prisoners based on policy parameters.
- The cases of convicts undergoing life imprisonment will be handled according to the pre-amendment policy.
- The relevant clause pertaining to prohibited categories for prisoners in para 3(vi) is discussed.
- Counter affidavits were filed in various pending proceedings post the amendment, with examples provided such as Dev Nath Singh v State of U.P., Rajkumar v The State of Uttar Pradesh, and Brij Bhushan v The State of Uttar Pradesh.
- A similar perspective was taken in the case of State of Haryana v Raj Kumar @ Bitu.
- The consideration for premature release applications is to be based on the policy in effect at the time of the accused’s conviction by the trial court, as seen in judgments like State of Haryana v Jagdish.
- The promise of equality in the Constitution cannot be fulfilled if liberty is dependent on an individual’s resources.
- Many cases provide evidence of this unfortunate reality.
- The court has intervened to address this issue and ensure equality for all individuals regardless of their resources.
Decision
- The restriction on premature release for life convicts until the age of sixty has been removed by an amendment.
- The District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) must gather status reports on all life imprisonment prisoners and ensure their submission in a specified format within eight weeks and annually.
- DLSAs should monitor and engage with authorities to ensure the implementation of directions for premature release on a continuous basis.
- Policies granting premature release benefits should be considered expeditiously, and no case shall be rejected solely due to being released on interim bail by court orders.
- If any convict is entitled to more benefits under newer amendments, those should be considered for premature release.
- The requirement for convicts to submit applications for premature release has been waived.
- Priority must be given to cases of convicts above seventy years or with terminal ailments, to be disposed of within two months.
- All other cases must be resolved within four months, with already processed cases to be concluded within one month.
- All cases of eligible convicts for premature release in Uttar Pradesh, including the present batch of 512 cases, shall be considered as per the policy.
- The District Legal Services Authorities must coordinate with jail authorities to ensure eligible prisoners are considered for premature release as per policies.
Case Title: RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2022 INSC 932)
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000336 / 2019
