Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1081

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons – Appellant
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).406 of 2013
Decided on : 19-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv., Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv., Ms. Neha Singh, Adv., Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR, Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv., Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv., Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR, Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv., Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv., Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Ag, Sr. Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv., Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Budhiraja, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv., Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv., Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv., Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv., Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv., Ms. Saushria Havelia, Adv., Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR, Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv., Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv., Mrs. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mrs. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Shagun Thakur, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv., Mrs. Neelakshi Bhadouria, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv., Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv., Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR, Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR, Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv., Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR, Mr. Rajendra Sahu, AOR, Mr. Rishabh Sahu, Adv., Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Adv., Ms. Hema Sahu, Adv., Mr. C L Sahu, Adv., Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR, Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv., Ms. Kritika, Adv., Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv., Ms. Pooja Gill, Adv., Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR, Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Tara Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv., Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv., Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR, Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Suhashini Sen, Adv., Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. B K Satija, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kartikay Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR, Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R. Bala, Adv., Mrs. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv., Mr. Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Adv., Mrs. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mrs. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Shagun Thakur, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv., Mrs. Neelakshi Bhadouria, Adv., Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR, Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv., Mr. Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv., Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR, Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Adv., Mrs. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv., Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv., Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv., Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR, Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR, Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Adv., Mr. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv., Mr. Aravindh S., Adv., Mr. Akshay Gupta, Adv., Mr. Abbas B., Adv.

The court mandated proactive identification and release of undertrial prisoners under Section 479 of the BNSS, emphasizing justice for all, especially first-time offenders.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 479 - Provisions for release of undertrial prisoners - The court emphasized the need for timely identification and release of undertrials, particularly first-time offenders, under the specified conditions of detention. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 12)

(B) Undertrial Review Committee - The court directed the UTRC to ensure accurate identification of deserving undertrials and facilitate their release through appropriate court orders. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The judgment addresses the implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS, which allows for the release of undertrial prisoners after specific periods of detention, emphasizing the need for proactive measures by state authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the lack of responses from several states regarding the implementation of Section 479 and stressed the importance of continuous updates on undertrial cases.

Issues: The main issues included the identification of deserving undertrials and the procedural steps required for their release.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that all stakeholders must ensure justice extends to all undertrials, particularly those who have been incarcerated for extended periods, and that states must respond promptly to facilitate this process.

Result: The court directed states to file their responses within two weeks and scheduled the next hearing for 10.12.2024.

ORDER :

1. Pursuant to the last order passed by this Court on 22.10.2024, a Note prepared by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar representing NALSA, is filed.

2. As earlier noticed, the matter pertains to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for the release of undertrial prisoners suffering prolonged incarceration. The benefit, of course, is not available for those charged with heinous offenses such as death sentences or life imprisonment. Section 479 of the BNSS reads as under:-

(1)Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail:

Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law:

Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond:

Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.

Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court.

(3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.”

3. The proviso to section 479 of the BNSS specifies that for the first time offenders, who have not been convicted of any offence in the past, shall be released on bond by the Court if the person has undergone detention for a period up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment, specified for such offence under that law.

4. For the other category, i.e. those who are not first-time offenders, the period of detention is minimum one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment to get the benefit of the release order, under Section 479 of the BNSS.

5. As recorded earlier on 23.08.2024, the beneficial provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them prior to 01.07.2024 i.e., the date when the new legislation has come into effect.

6. The identification of the deserving undertrials is required to be made by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district, with appropriate coordination with the Jail Superintendents of all the Jails in the country. The Member Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authority were directed to mobilize their panel advocates/ para legal volunteers, so that relevant information on the incarcerated undertrials, can be regularly updated. It was emphasized that this should be a continuous process since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document