1. Petitions under Article 32 seeking premature release of life convicts under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 and State Standing Policies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 915
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 2169 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 36 of 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2023
Important Points
The State must adhere to its own legal provisions for considering cases of premature release in a fair and transparent manner.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.161, Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: R.432, R.433(a)
JAIL MANUAL: Para.177, Para.178, Para.179
UTTAR PRADESH PRISONERS RELEASE ON PROBATION RULES: R.4
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: R.432, R.433(a)
JAIL MANUAL: Para.177, Para.178, Para.179
UTTAR PRADESH PRISONERS RELEASE ON PROBATION RULES: R.4
Headnote
Premature Release - Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - The judgment discusses the premature release of persons sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under diverse provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It refers to the eligibility criteria for release and the process of premature release as per the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 and related rules. The judgment also highlights the consideration of mercy petitions and emphasizes that a convict's case for premature release is governed by the applicable policy at the time of conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed repeated petitions under Article 32 concerning cases for premature release not being considered despite fulfilling eligibility conditions.Finding of the Court:
The State was found to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking cases for premature release, deviating from legal provisions, leading to uneven application and potential abuse.Issues:
Uneven application of policies, arbitrary selection of cases for premature release.Ratio Decidendi:
The State must strictly abide by its own formulations of law and apply provisions equally and transparently to avoid uneven application.Final Decision:
All pending cases were directed to be disposed of by a specified date, with a compliance report due before the Court.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate, Ms. Akansha, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Advocate, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advocate, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate, Ms. Akansha, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Advocate, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advocate, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. State authorities allegedly adopted an arbitrary pick-and-choose policy, ignoring eligibility under the 1938 Act in favor of more restrictive subsequent policy requirements. (Para 12 )
3. The State must strictly adhere to its formulated laws and policies, ensuring transparent and equal application to avoid arbitrary discrimination against resource-poor prisoners. (Para 13 )
4. Premature release is governed by the policy existing on the conviction date, unless a subsequent policy is more liberal, in which case the liberal provision applies. (Para 5 , 6 , 13 )
5. Direction to dispose of all pending premature release cases by a specified deadline and file a compliance report. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Which policy governs the premature release of a convict?
Generally, the policy in existence on the date of conviction governs. However, if a more liberalized policy is instituted subsequently, the case must be considered based on the more liberalized provision. (Para 5 , 6 , 13 )
7. Can the State apply arbitrary criteria for premature release beyond its formulated policies?
No. The State is bound by its own formulations of law and cannot adopt arbitrary yardsticks. Provisions must be applied equally, efficiently, and transparently to all eligible persons to prevent abuse. (Para 13 )
8. What are the eligibility criteria for premature release under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938?
Prisoners are eligible if they have served fourteen years of imprisonment (with or without remissions, depending on whether Section 433-A of the CrPC applies) or one-third of their sentence in other cases. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. - On 6 September 2022, this Court in its judgment in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr [Writ Petition (Criminal) No 336 of 2019] issued a slew of directions governing the premature release of persons sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life consequent upon their conviction under diverse provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Following the above decision, this Court has been repeatedly moved in petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for securing the premature release of individual convicts because their cases for premature release have not been considered.
3. Under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938, cases for premature release of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and undergoing the sentence in the prisons of the State are considered under Form 'A'. The State of Uttar Pradesh formulated the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938. Rule 4 of the Rules is in the following terms :-
"4. Eligibility for release.-Any prisoner other than a prisoner specified in Rule 3, may be eligible for consideration by the State Government for release on licence--
(i) if he is a prisoner to whom Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies and has served imprisonment for a total period of fourteen years;
(ii) if he is a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life to whom Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply and has served imprisonment for a total period of fourteen years with remissions; and
(iii ) in any other case if he has served one-third without remissions of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced."
The process of premature release was, thus, being considered in terms of the above provision.
4. Apart from the above provisions, a 'Nominal Roll' of prisoners is prepared in terms of Section 432 read with Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ['CrPC'] and paragraph 198 of the Uttar Pradesh JAIL MANUAL (subsequently replaced by Para 180 of the JAIL MANUAL 2022). Moreover, an 'Infirmity Roll' of prisoners is prepared in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC read with paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of the Uttar Pradesh JAIL MANUAL (replaced by paragraphs 177 to 179 of the JAIL MANUAL 2022) governing the premature release of sick and disabled persons detained in prisons in the State. Mercy petitions presented by convicts or by their relatives, as the case may be, under Article 161 of the Constitution are also considered by the Governor of the State. The State of Uttar Pradesh has formulated a Standing Policy for premature release of prisoners sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life covered by Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The State Government formulated a Standing Policy on 1 August 2018. The policy was subsequently amended on 27 May 2022.
5. In several decisions of this Court, it has been held that the case of a convict for premature release is governed by the applicable policy on the date of conviction [State of Haryana Vs Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 and State of Haryana Vs Raj Kumar, (2021) 9 SCC 292].
6. The Standing Policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh as formulated on 1 August 2018 (as amended in 2021) contained a prohibition on the grant of premature release to convicts who had not completed the age of 60 years. The validity of the restriction was challenged before this Court in a batch of cases under Article 32 of the Constitution which eventually led to the judgment of Rashidul Jafar (supra). In the subsequent policy dated 27 May 2022, the bar on considering cases for premature release before a convict attains the age of 60 years stand lifted. This Court has hence directed that while, as a general principle, the policy which was in existence on the date of the conviction would govern the consideration of each case for premature release, in the event that a more liberalized policy is instituted subsequently, the case should be con
