“We have taken up a process for special remission of convicted persons who have completed 66 per cent of their jail term and maintained good conduct. This is being done following an instruction from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the occasion of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav,” Apurba Kumar Chakraborty, OSD to the department of prisons, told PTI.

Currently, there are 1,335 convicts in 14 jails in the state, which have a total capacity of 2,365. This means that the prisons are not overcrowded yet the state government went ahead with this move.

Tapash Roy, the secretary of the prisons under the Home (Jail) Department said during a Press Conference that 5 convicted prisoners are set to be released, reported India Today NE.

However, it is unclear whether there are any other conditions for releasing these prisoners or is it a blanket application on all prisoners irrespective of what they were convicted of, if they were serious offences, whether they would be treated any differently and whether they registered good behaviour.

As per The Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules 1998, under Rule 4, one of the conditions for being released on parole is good behavior.

However, what the Tripura government has decided is to release the prisoners for good and not just on parole which amounts to suspension of their sentence or their remission. Under section 432 of CrPC  Central and state governments have powers to remit and suspend the sentence of a convict and under section 433 of CrPC, the governments can commute the sentence as well which can be done suo moto.

Under the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav scheme, Maharashtra released 189 prisoners and Tamil Nadu released 60 prisoners in January, on the occasion of Republic Day. In March 2022, the Central government had decided to give special remission to certain category of prisoners which did not include those involved in serious crimes but included those who have consistently maintained good conduct during their term in prison. As per the Central government’s categories, those eligible for this special remission included:

>Women convicts of 50 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Transgender convicts of 50 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Male convicts of 60 years of age and above who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Physically challenged/disabled convicts with 70 per cent disability and more (duly certified by a medical board) who have completed 50 per cent of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Terminally ill convicts (duly certified by a medical board)

>Convicted prisoners who have completed two-third (66 per cent) of their total sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

>Poor or indigent prisoners who have completed their sentence but are still in jail due to non-payment of fine imposed on them by waiving off the fine.

>Persons who committed an offence at a young age i.e. between 18 and 21 years and with no other criminal involvement/case against them, who have completed 50 per cent of their sentence period (without counting the period of general remission earned).

Related:

Supreme Court directs all prisoners released on Covid-19 parole to surrender within 15 days

Law Ministry data shows steady increase in release of Undertrial prisoners over 4 years

Directions issued by the SC to prevent Delay in Release of Prisoners

The post Tripura decides to release 5 convicts who completed 66% of their sentence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central and Tripura governments on a plea for an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the incidents of violence in Tripura against the Muslim community. In the case titled Ehtesham Hashmi vs. Union of India, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the Court that the state was “not registering FIRs, sending 41a notices to lawyers who had produced that Fact-Finding report, invoking UAPA against journalists who had reported about this violence, not a single arrest has been made!”

A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ehtesham Hashmi seeking the Court’s intervention in alleged hate crimes that took place in Tripura in October. Hashmi, according to legal news portals, submitted before the court that he had personally visited riot affected areas of the state along with other Delhi based advocates, and published a fact-finding report about the visit. According to the petitioner, the following findings were arrived at after meeting with families and persons who were at the receiving end of the vandalism, stated the plea:

a) 12 Mosques were damaged;

b) 9 shops owned by Muslim businessmen were damaged; 

c) 3 houses owned by Muslims were vandalised.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Court that instead of taking adequate steps to prevent the hate crimes that took place over a period of ten days, or providing adequate relief to the victims, the respondents were hand in glove with the perpetrators, reported Bar and Bench.

The plea stated that, “The West Agartala Police Station has sent a notice u/s 41 A of the Criminal Procedure Code to two of the advocates that had accompanied the petitioner to conduct a fact-finding exercise and document the incidents of violence, imputing that it was their social media posts, statements and Report which were responsible for “promoting enmity between religious groups as well as provoking people of different religious communities to commit breach of peace,” adding that the police had invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against 102 people, including journalists, for reporting and writing on the violence,” stated the news report.

The plea stated that the conduct of the police was “arbitrary and mala fide” and affected the victims’ right to justice and was also violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also plea additionally sought directions to the respondents to “comply with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India”. In that case, the SC had directed that action must be taken for ‘failure to act’ by the police, therefore making way for individual criminal responsibility for erring police officials for acts of ‘omission or commission’, reported Live Law on the petition’s highlights. 

The Tripura High Court had also taken suo motu cognisance of the incident and recently asked the state government to specify details for computing the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the victims.

The plea also alleged, “Police and State authorities instead of attempting to stop the violence kept on claiming that there was no communal tension anywhere in Tripura and further denied reports of any mosque being set ablaze,” adding that it was a “shocking state of affairs where Muslims are openly targeted by rioters and no protection has been extended to them by the Respondents and no arrests of said rioters has been made by the police authorities.” The notice is made returnable in 2 weeks, the matter will be heard on December 13.

Over 10 days ago the Supreme Court of India had ordered that “no coercive steps be taken” against the two lawyers who were part of a fact-finding team that visited Tripura to investigate the communal violence that broke out in the state in October, and journalist Shyam Meera Singh who had written a social media post about the violence. They had all been booked under the draconian anti-terror law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Tripura Police for posting their opinions on social media, related to the recent communal violence in the state.

Related:

It is mayhem there… Supreme Court orders not being followed, Kapil Sibal tells SC 
Tripura: Journalists still make headlines for surviving attacks, rather than reporting them
No coercive steps to be taken against journalist, lawyers charged by Tripura Police: Supreme Court 

The post Supreme Court notice to Centre, Tripura gov’t on plea seeking SIT probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Press Council of India has demanded an explanation from the Tripura government on allegations of attacks on journalists made by the Assembly of Journalists (AOJ), which is a forum for protection of media rights. The AOJ has alleged that over 20 scribes were attacked in Tripura after Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb’s controversial remarks  on the media during a programme last year in September. It was widely reported when on September 11, 2020, Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb’s while speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Tripura’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Sabroom had said that a section of “over-excited newspapers” were “trying to confuse people” over Covid-19 and added that “neither history nor I will forgive them”.

Journalists had called him out on this comment and said that the CM seemed to have issued a ‘threat’ to the media and that it was an “assault on press freedom”. Deb had reportedly responded that while he “didn’t mean to hurt anyone,” he “would continue to protect the best interests of people of Tripura against any attempts at misleading” the people. It was reported that the CM’s media advisor, Sanjoy Mishra had also said his comments were misinterpreted. However, according to local media, allegations of various attacks on journalists from working in the region, were reported.

The AOJ took cognisance of that and had recently issued a statement that said, anti social elements have been emboldened to attack the media after the CM’s speech. The AOJ stated: “The chief minister (Biplab Kumar Deb) had threatened the media during an event at Sabroom sub-division on September 11. Encouraged by this, anti-socials and miscreants sheltered under the umbrella of the ruling party are organising constant attacks on the media. At least 23 journalists have been attacked in Tripura in the last six months following the chief minister’s threat.”  A delegation of the Assembly of Journalists had met at the Agartala State Guest House on Sunday, and informed Press Council of India representatives “about the increasing attacks on journalists and news media in the state.”

https://www.facebook.com/assemblyofjournalists/posts/209565894255000

Now the Press Council of India (PCI) has sought a response from the Tripura government regarding purported complaints of these attacks on journalists in the past six months. According to media reports, PCI secretary Anupama Bhatnagar has written to Tripura Chief secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police, and asked them to respond within two weeks. Media reports quoted the letter: “on consideration of the complaint, Chairman, Press Council of India has decided to take cognizance in the matter under provision of Regulations 14 (f) of Press Council ( Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 and I have been directed to request to file your comments in the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of this letter to enable the Council to determine further course of action in the matter.”  According to news reports, state Home Secretary Sharadindu Choudhury told the media on Saturday that the letter had been received “last week” and that a reply will be given soon.

Related

Scrap rules proposed to monitor digital media: Journalists’ organisations
HRDA appeals to NHRC over illegal arrest of journalist Saleem Khan
Tripura HC quashes FIR against man charged for misleading FB post about pro-
From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

The post Press Council of India demands explanation from Tripura Govt on allegations of attacks on journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.