The court established that life convicts' applications for premature release must be processed promptly, requiring the committee to meet every two months.

JUDGMENT :

M.Nagaprasanna, J.

1.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed this application seeking extension of general parole granted to him, the convict (CTP No.8992), by this Court on 24.10.2024 and on 08.04.2025, on the very same reason that his application is pending consideration before the Committee seeking premature release.

2. This Court, in identical circumstances, in W.P.1300 of 2023 has passed the following order:

“8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Therefore, they require no iteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with the relief sought being only to place the case of the petitioner before the second respondent - Committee without any loss of time with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release in terms of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of the Jail Authorities since 22.07.2022. The representation of the petitioner has not been placed before the Committee, only on the ground that the Committee has not met. It is now close to 8 months that the Committee has not met. In these circumstances, it becomes germane to notice the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time concerning the release of the life convicts. The Apex Court considering the issue State wise, in the case of SONADHAR VS. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH , [SLA (Crl.) No.529/2021, order dated 09.02.2022], as in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has held as follows:

“STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (U.P.)

Uttar Pradesh was taken up as one of the states for carrying out a pilot project. The data shows that for the year 2021, 1372 applications were received for premature release of the convicts and 633 applications were allowed by the State Government, while 739 applications were rejected. 588 life convicts have been prematurely released while 45 applications were returned for queries. We are cautious of the extent of pending cases on different aspects in Uttar Pradesh, but we express some concern about 739 applications being rejected, which is a large number and express an apprehension on whether the policy of 28.7.2021, which has added a condition of minimum 60 years before release, was an impediment. Ms.Garima Prashad, learned AAG submits that it was not pointed out to the Court in W.P.(Crl) No.398 of 2021 that in view of reservations expressed in different matters on this aspect, the bar of 60 years stands withdrawn. She also makes a submission that an endeavour has been made to streamline the process so that the needful be done within a period 90 days from the inception of clearance and seven occasions have been identified when prisoners would be released. These are Republic day (26^th January), Women’s day (8^th March), World Health Day (7^th April), Labour Day (1^st May), Yoga Day (21^st June), Independence Day (15^th August) and Gandhi Jayanti (2^nd October). In this behalf, we would like to observe that insofar as the first half of he year is concerned, there are five occasions identified for release of prisoners but in the second half only two occasions have been identified. We desire the state Government to identify at least three more significant days for release of prisoners in the second half of the year.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court while noticing the issue qua the State of Uttar Pradesh, observes that the Committee has met five times a year in the first half of the year. The Apex Court directs that it desires that the State Government to identify atleast three more significant days for release of the prisoners in the second half of the year. Therefore, the direction of the Apex Court would be that the Committee should meet atleast 8 times in a year. The Apex Court also notices that th