Back
'143 Applications Pending; Delay Defeats ':
In a stern rebuke to Bihar's prison administration, the has spotlighted a crippling backlog of 143 applications for of life convicts languishing before the . A bench led by Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar questioned why eligible prisoners like appellant Jagarnath Thakur —who has endured over 15 years of —are denied consideration, echoing Supreme Court mandates for swift, fair processing under the .
From Murder Conviction to Mercy Plea: Jagarnath's Long Wait
The saga began with PS Case No. 310/2009 at in Darbhanga, leading to Jagarnath Thakur 's life sentence confirmed post-2017. Appealing for early release under Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 620 of 2024 , Thakur highlighted his of actual imprisonment as of —exceeding the in (i) of the for convicts under , absent exceptions like multiple murders or gang violence.
His application reached the Remission Board twice: deferred in , then rejected in for not hitting 20 years including remission (projected 2029) and a technicality over his interim bail status. The court probed deeper, noting pre-trial detention ( ) and post-conviction time tallied over 15 years , with the Advocate General conceding no disqualifying exceptions applied.
State's Defense: Rules Rigid, Backlog Overwhelming
Bihar's counsel, led by , countered via affidavits from AIG Rajiv Kumar (Prisons). They insisted demands 20 years with remission for some life terms, clarified Thakur's plea was reconsidered but nixed on custody grounds, and invoked for terminal illness releases only—not old age or ailments sans death risk.
On pendency, the state listed 143 cases sponsored by prison superintendents , blaming assembly elections for fewer 2025 meetings despite quarterly mandates in . Five meetings in 2025 and four in 2026 aimed to clear the slate by June 2026, but the court dismissed excuses as inadequate.
Judicial Scalpel: Dissecting Delays with Supreme Court Backing
The bench dissected Bihar Prison Manual Rules 481-483 , affirming eligibility post- 14 years actual imprisonment for non-excepted life convicts. It flagged procedural flaws, like rigid 20-year remissions misapplied and 's impractical call for the original trial judge's opinion years later.
Drawing from , the court stressed transparent, timely processing to uphold , decrying apathy trapping reformed souls in overcrowded jails. reinforced proactive state duty sans convict applications, while warned of contempt for delays beyond policy timelines.
"
of convicts is based on the philosophy of
allowing those who have reformed, to reintegrate into the society,"
the bench declared, slamming backlogs as self-defeating.
Key Observations
"From the submission made, it is not clear whether the application of the appellant... was rejected or it was deferred for consideration after."
"We fail to understand as to why the cases of those 143 persons could not be considered as yet."
"The implementation of the policy forhas to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the constitutional guarantees under."(citing Rashidul Jafar)
"Application ofof convicts should be processed and disposed off at the earliest opportunity and power to grantmust be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner."
No Release Yet, But Clock Ticking for Bihar
The order stops short of granting Thakur relief, instead mandating:
- Detailed affidavits explaining eligibility miscalculations and quirks.
- Report on the Board's decisions for all 143 cases.
- Virtual appearances by Home Secretary and IG Prisons on .
This interim directive signals broader reform: expedited disposals per SC guidelines, potentially freeing eligible lifers and easing Bihar's prison crunch. For Thakur and hundreds like him, it's a judicial nudge toward liberty long overdue.
