Supreme Court seeks names of U.P. officials who refused to accept remission files, warns of contempt
The Supreme Court warned contempt action against officers in the office of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and sought to know the names of those officials who had refused to accept files of remission pleas of convicted prisoners due to MCC
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. File
| Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar
Warning contempt action against officers in the office of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the Supreme Court on Monday (August 12, 2024) sought to know the names of those officials who had refused to accept files of remission pleas of convicted prisoners due to enforcement of model code of conduct.
Remission is the cancellation or reduction of a part of the prison sentence of a prisoner. Under section 432 of the CrPC, State Governments may remit the whole or part of the punishment to which a convict has been sentenced based on factors such as the prisoner's conduct, rehabilitation, health and time served in the prison.
The laws around remission policy | Explained
A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed its displeasure over the State Government not processing files related to remission pleas within the specified time frame despite its order.
It directed Rajesh Kumar Singh, principal secretary of Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration Department to give the details on an affidavit and the names of officers who had refused to accept it.
"We direct Rajesh Kumar Singh to file an affidavit giving details, such as names of the officers in the office of the Secretariat of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh who refused to accept the file. He will also place on record whether any effort was made by him to represent before the concerned officers in the secretariat of the Chief Minister that the government was bound by the order of this court dated May 13, 2024," the Bench said.
The top court, which listed the matter for further hearing on August 20, was dealing with a remission plea of a convict Kuldeep in accordance with the applicable policy of the State.
It said even in this case, "as of today", no decision has been taken by the State Government.
"What is shocking is the response of Rajesh Kumar Singh in writ petition…. He states that notwithstanding the order dated May 13, 2024, passed by this court in writ petition… making it very clear that the code of conduct will not come in the way of the State Government while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent remission, the file forwarded to the secretariat of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh was not accepted and, ultimately, the file was sent to the secretariat of the Chief Minister only after the expiry of code of conduct," the Bench said.
Warning of contempt action against the officials, the Bench said, "Before we issue a notice of contempt to the appropriate officers of the State Government, we direct Rajesh Kumar Singh to file an affidavit setting out on oath what he has stated before us orally."
It noted that Singh appeared before the court pursuant to its August 5 order failed to give any plausible reason for the delay in processing the remission files.
"He has hardly any explanation to offer for the long delay in making compliance with the orders of this court and now he is giving an excuse that the file is pending with the competent authority," the Bench said.
It asked for the necessary correspondence made with the Secretariat of the Chief Minister to be placed on record with regard to the remission of one of the convicts.
The affidavit has to be filed by August 14, the Bench directed Singh.
The Bench remarked that officials do not attach any value to the orders of the court even though they are dealing with matters related to human liberty.
Justice Oka asked the State Government as to who will compensate the prisoner for the delay in processing the remission plea.
"Suppose a person is granted premature release, who is going to compensate him for this delay if he is found entitled to premature release?" the Bench said.
On August 5, the top court had noted that almost four months had elapsed since the April 10 order was passed by it directing the Uttar Pradesh government to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent remission.
"Now, the respondent-State wants two more months. While the respondent-State is seeking two more months, the application is worded in such a manner that there is already an indication that the case of the petitioner will not be considered," it had said.
The Bench had observed that as far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, "we have repeatedly noticed that the orders of this court directing consideration of premature release are not being implemented within the time fixed by this Court".
It had directed the principal secretary of the prison administration department of the State to remain present in the court through video conference.
The Bench rapped the Uttar Pradesh government for not complying with its order and said, "We want to correct this system."
In April, the apex court had granted six weeks to the Uttar Pradesh Government.
On July 10, when the matter came up for hearing, the top court was informed that the State Government has not passed any order despite jail authorities favourably recommending the case of the petitioner.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
Uttar Pradesh
/
judiciary (system of justice)
/
court administration
/
state politics