1. Non-compliance with court orders regarding the consideration of remission and pre-mature release for convicts by state authorities. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 897
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 2169 of 2022 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 36 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Important Points
The duty of the State to consider applications for pre-mature release in accordance with its own policy without requiring a formal application to be filed.
Subject
Civil Law - Miscellaneous Application
Headnote
Compliance - Miscellaneous Application - The court ordered the Director General of State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps taken to consider cases for premature release, the number of eligible convicts, cases considered, pending cases, and the timeline for consideration. The court also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and requested their assistance through panel counsel to fulfill the directions of a previous judgment. The court also appointed Mr. Rishi Malhotra as Amicus Curiae and directed compliance with previous orders for the fifty convicts involved in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The specific cause for the Miscellaneous Application is the non-consideration of the case for remission/pre-mature release of fifty convicts despite previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the Director General of State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit and directed compliance with previous orders for the fifty convicts. The court also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and appointed Mr. Rishi Malhotra as Amicus Curiae.
Issues: Non-consideration of the case for remission/pre-mature release despite previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the State to consider applications for pre-mature release in accordance with its own policy without requiring a formal application to be filed.
Final Decision: The court directed the Director General of State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit, issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, appointed Mr. Rishi Malhotra as Amicus Curiae, and directed compliance with previous orders for the fifty convicts.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Rai, Advocate, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advocate, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Ms. Preetika Dewedi, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Rai, Advocate, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advocate, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Ms. Preetika Dewedi, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Failure of the competent state authority to consider cases for remission and pre-mature release despite previous judicial directions. (Para 1 )
3. The state must consider pre-mature release applications based on its own policy without requiring a formal application from the convict. (Para 2 )
4. State authorities are duty-bound to consider pre-mature release in accordance with policy without the necessity of a formal application. (Para 2 )
5. Direction for the state to file a detailed compliance affidavit and immediate consideration of pre-mature release for the involved convicts. (Para 3 , 10 )
6. Is a formal application necessary for the consideration of pre-mature release?
No, the state is duty-bound to consider applications for pre-mature release in terms of its own policy without an application being required to be filed. (Para 2 )
7. What obligations does the state have regarding the transparency of pre-mature release processes?
The state must provide detailed information, including the number of eligible convicts district-wise, the number of cases considered, and the timeline for remaining cases. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. In these proceedings, the specific cause for the Miscellaneous Application is that despite the previous orders of this Court, the case for remission/pre-mature release of fifty convicts has not been considered by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Concerned as we are with the compliance of the order of this Court, an additional aspect which needs to be noted is that in its judgment in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition (Crl) No 336 of 2019 decided on 6 September 2022], this Court had expressly clarified that the State is duty bound to consider applications for pre-mature release in terms of its own policy without an application being required to be filed.
3. The Director General of State of Uttar Pradesh shall file a personal affidavit before this Court setting out the following details:
(i). The steps which have been taken in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota (supra) for considering cases for premature release and the institutional arrangements which have been put into place;
(ii). How many convicts are eligible for being considered for pre-mature release, district-wise, in the State of Uttar Pradesh;
(iii). How many cases have been considered for pre-mature release since decision of this Court in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota (supra);
(iv). How many cases remain to be considered; and
(v). The time period within which the cases shall be considered.
4. The affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks.
5. Notice shall also issue to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authorit ['UPSLSA'].
6. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall also cause a copy of the notice to be served on the Secretary to UPSLSA.
7. We request the UPSLSA to assist this Court through panel counsel so that the purpose underlying the directions which were issued in the above judgment is duly fulfilled.
8. We request Mr Rishi Malhotra, counsel, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.
9. The Registry shall cause a copy of the paper book to be given to the Amicus Curiae.
10. In the meantime, we direct compliance with the orders already passed by this Court in regard to the fifty convicts involved in the present case.
11. List the Miscellaneous Application on 6 February 2023.
