1. Contempt petitions regarding premature release of convicts — Government status report on pending applications — Administrative and legal hurdles to release. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1940
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Murari Lodh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Awanish Kumar Awasthi and Another – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 of 2022, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 87, 152, 154, 185, 186, 188 of 2021
Decided On : 18-07-2022
Important Points
The Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to finalize the premature release process for the remaining convicts within four weeks, ensuring compliance with previous orders and disposing of the contempt petitions upon the government's commitment to resolve pending cases.
Subject
Criminal Law - Contempt of Court
Act Referred
SC/ST Act
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Court - Issuance of Directions - The court acknowledged the affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary regarding the premature release of convicts, with 98 out of 111 convicts having been processed. The court mandated decisions on the remaining cases within four weeks. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Justice and Expediency - The court concluded that maintaining the contempt petitions was no longer expedient in the interest of justice. (Para 4)
(C) Compliance and Verification - The court ordered verification of the status of an individual convict within the stipulated period and allowed the petitioners the liberty to file interlocutory applications if necessary. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The contempt petitions concern the premature release of several convicts, with specific focus on scenarios involving delays and pending approvals from various authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the competent authority to finalize the cases within four weeks and noted the resolution of certain convicts' status.
Issues: The main issues included the processing of 111 convicts for premature release and verification of individual cases, especially one noted for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of expediency and justice in handling contempt petitions and compliance with the established time guidelines for the authorities.
Result: Contempt petitions disposed of.
(B) Justice and Expediency - The court concluded that maintaining the contempt petitions was no longer expedient in the interest of justice. (Para 4)
(C) Compliance and Verification - The court ordered verification of the status of an individual convict within the stipulated period and allowed the petitioners the liberty to file interlocutory applications if necessary. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The contempt petitions concern the premature release of several convicts, with specific focus on scenarios involving delays and pending approvals from various authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the competent authority to finalize the cases within four weeks and noted the resolution of certain convicts' status.
Issues: The main issues included the processing of 111 convicts for premature release and verification of individual cases, especially one noted for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of expediency and justice in handling contempt petitions and compliance with the established time guidelines for the authorities.
Result: Contempt petitions disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Anu Gupta, Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti.
For the Respondents: Garima Prasad, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Anu Gupta, Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti.
For the Respondents: Garima Prasad, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute regarding the factual accuracy of the government's status report concerning the release of a specific convict. (Para 3 )
3. Administrative delays, missing records, and pending inter-governmental opinions must be resolved within a strict timeframe to ensure the implementation of release orders. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. The court may dispose of contempt petitions by issuing time-bound directions for administrative compliance, while reserving the petitioners' right to seek further implementation. (Para 4 )
5. Contempt petitions disposed of with directions to finalize pending premature release applications and verify disputed statuses within four weeks. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
6. How does the court address administrative delays in processing premature release applications during contempt proceedings?
The court sets strict, time-bound deadlines for competent authorities to finalize decisions and reconstruct necessary records to ensure the timely execution of release orders. (Para 2 )
7. What is the procedure when premature release under the SC/ST Act requires an opinion from the Union Government?
The court directs the state government to expedite the process and forward the court's order to the competent authority in the Union Government to ensure compliance with the time schedule. (Para 2 )
8. What action does the court take when a party disputes the factual accuracy of a government status report regarding a convict's release?
The court directs the competent authority to verify the factual position and take necessary action within a specified timeframe if the reported release is found to be incorrect. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. An affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department of the Government of UP dated 12 July 2022. The affidavit clarifies that out of a total of 111 convicts covered by the group of six contempt petitions, orders for premature release have already been issued in 98 cases after a decision was taken at the competent level. The status pertaining to 111 cases is compiled in Annexure I to the affidavit. As regards the remaining 13 convicts (111 minus 98), the position has been clarified in the affidavit in the following terms:
“4. That regarding 8 Petitioners/Convicts after considering the case by the Government the cases have been referred to the competent level for taking decision on premature release.
5. That in one case the copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court is not received to consider premature release of the convict, hence the proposal has been returned to prison headquarter on which action is pending.
6. That 1 convict/Petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri has been released on surety bond on 16.10.2021, hence the proposal for premature release is not received.
7. That 3 cases relates to the punishment under SC/ST Act , hence for obtaining the opinion of Government of India, the same are pending.”
2. We issue the following directions:
(i) The cases of the 8 convicts which have been referred to in paragraph 4 of the above affidavit shall be finalized by the competent authority no later than within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
(ii) As regards the sole case referred to in paragraph 5 of the affidavit extracted above, it has been stated by Ms Garima Prasad, Additional Advocate General that the judgment of the Sessions Court is required to be reconstructed and that the entire process shall be completed within a period of four weeks. Hence, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, final orders in regard to the premature release of the said convict shall be passed by the competent authority.
(iii) No further directions are required in regard to the contents of paragraph 6 of the affidavit since the convict has been released on 16 October 2022 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the execution of a surety bond.
(iv) In regard to paragraph 7 of the affidavit extracted above, it has been stated by the Additional Advocate General that out of three cases relating to the SC&ST Act, two convicts have already been released on bail. Since the opinion of the Union Government is awaited, this process shall be expedited and orders on the application for premature release shall be passed within a period of four weeks. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Government of UP to the competent authority in the Union Government so as to ensure compliance with the time schedule.
3. Ms Anu Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has adverted to serial number 58 of Annexure I to the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary. Serial number 58 refers to a convict by the name of Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare, who is stated to have been released on 6 May 2021. Counsel states that her instructions are that another convict by the same name, who is aged about 70 years, was released, but her instructions are that Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare is yet to be released, contrary to the status report, which indicates that he was released on 6 May 2022. The competent authority shall duly verify the factual position and if no decision has been taken yet on the premature release of Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare (at serial number 58 of the Annexure I), necessary action shall be taken within a period of four weeks by the government.
4. In view of the orders for release which have been passed by the Government of UP and the additional directions which have been issued in the above terms, it is no longer expedient in the interest of justice to keep the contempt petitions alive. Should it beco
