IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the executive's discretion in granting premature release must be lawful and fair, directing reconsideration of cases for inmates not falling under prohibited categories.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, C.J.

1. We have taken cognizance of the report submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mani, Member Secretary, Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, Nainital, concerning the inspection of the Central Jail in Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, conducted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, who also serves as the Hon'ble Patron-in-Chief of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, on 17.04.2024. During the inspection, the District Judge of Udham Singh Nagar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Udham Singh Nagar, the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, and officials from the Jail Authorities were present. During the inspection, several details were sought from the Jail Authorities, including: Information about prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than five years, details of prisoners convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or the POCSO Act who claim to be married to the victim or have children, information on prisoners aged 70 years or above who have completed the sentences handed down by the courts, details of prisoners who have been in jail for more than 14 years, clarification on the rules concerning the premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, and any other relevant information. The report has been duly noted, and the registry has been directed to initiate a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the premature release of prisoners who remain incarcerated despite being eligible for release under the State Government’s policy. A notice has also been issued to the learned Government Advocate regarding this matter.

2. During an inspection of the Central Jail, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 17th March 2024, it was discovered that several prisoners remained incarcerated despite having completed their sentences and being eligible for release. This Court has been 167 inmates across the State of Uttarakhand, who qualify for premature release. Their applications for premature release have already been submitted, along with a status report-reflecting a negative recommendation-to the committee comprising the Principal Secretary (Home-Prison), Government of Uttarakhand, and the Principal Secretary (Law and Legislative), Government of Uttarakhand.

3. In its order dated 20th March 2024, the Court directed the members of the committee to appear virtually on 21st March 2024 and provide an update on how long it will take to resolve the pending files, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar and Others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252 of 2023]. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a negative report from the Superintendent of Police cannot be used as the sole basis for rejecting the premature release of prisoners.

4. The respondents-officers appeared before this Court and informed that they would review the files of all 167 inmates whose premature release had been recommended by the jail authorities, in accordance assured the Court that a decision would be made by 5:00 p.m. on the same day, and the relevant jail authorities would be duly informed. Subsequently, a compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024 was filed by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The affidavit stated that upon reviewing the cases, the State-level committee found that four inmates had already been released on 29th January 2024 and 21st February 2024, while one female inmate had passed away on 25th January 2024. Regarding the remaining inmates, the committee, due to the urgency of the matter, recommended the premature release of 28 prisoners on 21st March 2024. This decision was promptly communicated to this Hon’ble Court on 22nd March 2024.

5. However, due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, the matter was referred to th