1. Petitioners seeking premature release — Eligibility under un-amended jail policy — Conflict between previous and subsequent premature release policies. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1939
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Brij Bhushan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 75 of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Important Points
The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider the premature release of eligible life convicts based on the un-amended jail policy dated August 1, 2018, as the State clarified that eligibility under the previous policy persists despite the introduction of the July 28, 2021 policy.
Subject
Criminal Law - Prisoner Rights
Headnote
(A) Premature Release Jail Policy - Consideration for premature release of life convicts based on eligibility under the un-amended policy dated 01.08.2018 despite the revised policy dated 28.07.2021 - Petitioners permitted to submit fresh representations with a directive for expeditious consideration. (Paras 1-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought premature release as they were eligible under the previous policy, which was affirmed by the Uttar Pradesh government. The Supreme Court directed the state to reconsider these applications within three months.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases for premature release in accordance with the 2018 policy.
Issues: The main issue addressed is the eligibility of life convicts for release under the state’s premature release policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to prior eligibility criteria under the un-amended policy for granting premature releases.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for consideration of premature release.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought premature release as they were eligible under the previous policy, which was affirmed by the Uttar Pradesh government. The Supreme Court directed the state to reconsider these applications within three months.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases for premature release in accordance with the 2018 policy.
Issues: The main issue addressed is the eligibility of life convicts for release under the state’s premature release policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to prior eligibility criteria under the un-amended policy for granting premature releases.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for consideration of premature release.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mahul M. Gupta, Nagendra Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Rishi Malhotra.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mahul M. Gupta, Nagendra Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Rishi Malhotra.
Table of Contents
2. State's submission — Prisoners eligible under un-amended premature release policy remain eligible despite introduction of subsequent policy. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Court's reliance on State's clarification — Consistency in applying premature release eligibility based on the un-amended policy as clarified in previous similar matters. (Para 3 )
4. Preservation of eligibility for premature release under an un-amended policy upon State's clarification that such eligibility persists despite subsequent policy amendments. (Para 3 )
5. Respondents directed to consider petitioners' cases for premature release within three months based on the un-amended jail policy. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. How is eligibility for premature release handled when a new jail policy is introduced?
If the State clarifies that prisoners who were eligible under an un-amended policy will still be considered eligible based on their status prior to the new policy, the authorities must consider their cases accordingly. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
1. In Dev Nath Singh vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition (Crl) No. 528 of 2021, a two-Judge Bench of this Court passed the following order on 21 February 2022:
“Respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh has filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating as under:
“23. The Government of Uttar Pradesh on 16.12.2021 has decided that the prisoners convicted and undergoing sentence for life imprisonment who were earlier eligible for consideration under the un-amended premature release jail policy dated 01.08.2018, will still be considered for eligibility for premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of policy dated 28.07.2021.”
In view of the above, we direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner of pre mature release accordingly, within three months.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
2. A similar order was passed by this Court on 11 March 2022 in Rajkumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 36 of 2022 in the following terms:
“1. An affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Ghaziabad, inter alia, stating that:
“The Government of Uttar Pradesh on 16.12.2021 has decided that the prisoners convicted and undergoing sentence for life imprisonment who were earlier eligible for consideration under the un-amended premature release jail policy dated 01.8.2018, will still be considered for eligibility for premature release as per their eligibility before introduction of policy dated 28.07.2021.
2. Mr. Nagendra Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that the above clarification would resolve the grievance of the petitioners and their representations may now be directed to be considered by the competent authority expeditiously.
3. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that if the petitioners submit fresh representations, the representations shall be considered within a period of three months.
3. We accordingly permit the petitioners to submit representations for their release. The representations shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the statement which has been made in the counter affidavit expeditiously and orders communicated in any event within a period of three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the competent authority.
4. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
3. In view of the above orders and since the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed counter affidavits in the above cases specifically clarifying the position as noted in the orders of this Court, we order and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for premature release within a period of three months in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018.
4. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
