Image Courtesy: hindustantimes.com
On September 6, the Supreme Court emphasised that the State must implement its policy for the premature release of life-sentenced prisoners in an objective and transparent manner. The Court ruled that the State must diligently evaluate the cases of eligible inmates for remission after noting that numerous offenders languish in jail while serving lengthy sentences because they lack access to legal resources to seek for remission.
The decision followed a petition by more than 500 prisoners who objected to Uttar Pradesh’s new policy on premature release, which disqualified them despite serving 16 years of their sentence. These convicts were eligible for release as of August 1, 2018, but Uttar Pradesh took a stricter position and limited the eligibility of premature release to those who reached the age of 60 on July 28, 2021.However, the condition was later omitted by the state.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli made these significant observations, as reported by LiveLaw: “The implementation of the policy for premature release has to be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few or no resources. Lack of literacy, education and social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies. Once the state has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all eligible convicts. The constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in terms of the policy.”
The court further held, “In the event that any of the convicts are entitled to more liberal benefits under the amendments to the August 1, 2018 policy, the case of the convict shall be considered under the more liberal policy applicable to him.”
The bench stated, using the August 2018 policy, that no criminal will have to petition for an early release since the state will process the release permit after requesting the suggestion of the relevant prison official. The court instructed the District Legal Service Authority to take the appropriate actions to make sure that no qualified prisoner is left behind in this respect.
According to the state’s most recent policy amendment, any prisoner who has served at least 16 years of their real sentence and 20 years (with remission) will be eligible to request for early release. Additionally, under the new policy, those who have been found guilty of three or more murders may be eligible for parole after serving 25 years of their real term and 30 years (with remission) of their life sentence.
Garima Parshad, additional advocate general for the state of Uttar Pradesh, said the court that the issue of life convicts seeking premature release was already being considered and would take three months to be resolved. The court mandated that all cases that the state government is already examining be resolved within a month in light of the fact that it was just hearing the cases of 512 inmates and that there may be other life criminals incarcerated in UP facilities.
The court ordered that the cases of life prisoners who are 70 years of age or older or who have terminal illnesses be considered first and resolved in two months.
Since many of the prisoners who petitioned the court were also released on bail, the bench made it clear that the aforementioned prisoners would continue to have bail until the state government made a decision regarding their requests for release.
Advocates Rishi Malhotra and Anu Gupta, along with other advocates, used the UP Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act in their applications on behalf of the prisoners, which relied on the state’s premature release policy that was announced on August 1, 2018. Every year on Republic Day, the government used Article 161, the Governor’s authority of pardon, to provide remission to inmates.
The petitioners were eligible for an early release in January 2020 since, in accordance with the 2018 policy, they had served the required minimum of 16 years in jail. However, the list of inmates freed in 2020 and 2021 did not include their names. An addendum to the 2018 policy was released on July 28, 2021, limiting the benefit under the 2018 policy to convicts 60 years of age and older. The new rule was implemented after the fact.
The inmates protested the revised policy and said that by enforcing such a rigid criterion, all inmates—young or middle-aged—would not be eligible for parole until they turned 60.
The new policy made certain improvements even though it did away with the age restriction. This included granting a pardon on 10 occasions rather than just on Republic Day each year (as per August 2018 policy). However, the new policy added state discretion by stating that the state government shall have the ability to deny the release of an eligible life inmate if it is determined that doing so would be detrimental to the greater good.
The Directions passed by the Court were:
All cases for premature release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life in the present batch of cases shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, subject to the observations which are contained herein. The restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021, stands deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground;
(In the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any of the amendments which have been brought about subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant of premature release would be considered by granting benefit in terms of more liberal amended para/clause of the policies. All decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy;
In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1 August 2018, no application is required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. Further, through amendment dated 28 July 2021, para 3(i), which included convicts undergoing life imprisonment who have not filed application for pre-mature release in the prohibited category, has specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all cases of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State of Uttar Pradesh who are eligible for being considered for premature release in terms of the policy, including but not confined to the five hundred and twelve prisoners involved in the present batch of cases, shall be considered in terms of the procedure for premature release stipulated in the policy;
The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination with the jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the applicable policies, as noticed above, would be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise eligible for being considered, shall be excluded from consideration;
These steps to be taken by DLSAs would, include but not be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking status report on all prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the format of table prepared in Annexure-A covering the details mentioned in para 13 of this judgment and ensuring its submission by relevant authorities within eight weeks of this order as well as on an annual basis. Further, DLSAs would utilize this status report to monitor and engage with respective authorities to ensure the implementation of our directions to ensure premature release in terms of applicable policies in all eligible cases of convicts undergoing life sentence on a continuous basis;
The applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously. Those cases which have already been processed and in respect of which reports have been submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Cases of eligible life convicts who are (i) above the age of seventy years; or (ii) suffering from terminal ailments shall be taken up on priority and would be disposed of within a period of two months. The Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall, within a period of two weeks, lay down the priorities according to which all other pending cases shall be disposed of. All other cases shall, in any event, be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of this order; and
Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by the orders of this Court, the order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until the disposal of the application for premature release.
Related:
A very bad precedent has been set: Judge who convicted 11 men in BilkisBano case
Cal HC directs authorities to decide remission applications expeditiously
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Madras HC modifies order in petition seeking premature release of convicts