LEGAL ISSUE: Premature release of life convicts.
CASE TYPE: Criminal.
Case Name: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Judgment Date: 6 September 2022
Date of the Judgment: 6 September 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 756
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J
Can a life convict be denied premature release based on a policy change after their conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, examining the premature release policy for life convicts in Uttar Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the applicable policy and emphasizes the need for fair and objective consideration of release applications. The bench comprised of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.
Case Background
The case involves 512 convicts serving life sentences in Uttar Pradesh who sought premature release. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a policy on 1 August 2018, under Article 161 of the Constitution, governing the premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment on Republic Day (26th January). This policy categorized convicts eligible for premature release.
A key provision, para 2(b), allowed male convicts not falling under prohibited categories and having served 16 years without remission or 20 years with remission to be considered for premature release. Prohibited categories, as defined in para 3, included those convicted of massacre-related crimes (three or more murders).
The policy required jail authorities to examine eligibility and forward proposals to the Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, who would then submit them to the Inspector General of Prisons. A committee would then review proposals and make recommendations to the government.
On 28 July 2021, the policy was amended, introducing a requirement that a life convict would not be released until they reached 60 years of age. However, an exception was made for those in the prohibited category under para 3(vi), allowing them to be considered for release after completing 25 years without remission or 30 years with remission, provided they were 60 years of age.
This amendment led to petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the new age criteria. The petitioners argued that premature release should be based on the policy at the time of conviction, not subsequent restrictive policies.
Subsequently, on 27 May 2022, the policy was further amended, removing the age criteria of 60 years. The amended clause 2(b) states that male convicts who do not fall under the prohibited category and have served 16 years without remission or 20 years with remission can be considered for release. Similarly, for those in the prohibited category under para 3(vi), the amended clause 2(g) allows consideration after serving 25 years without remission or 30 years with remission.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1 August 2018 | Government of Uttar Pradesh issues policy for premature release of life convicts. |
| 28 July 2021 | Amendment to the policy introduced, requiring convicts to attain the age of 60 years for premature release. |
| 27 May 2022 | Further amendment to the policy, removing the age criteria of 60 years. |
| 24 August 2022 | Supreme Court orders for a tabulated statement of all convicts. |
| 6 September 2022 | Supreme Court issues judgment clarifying the premature release policy. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that several judgments, including State of Haryana v Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216] and State of Haryana v Raj Kumar @ Bitu [(2021) 9 SCC 292], have held that an application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the accused was convicted by the trial court.
Following the amendment of 27 May 2022, counter affidavits were filed in several pending proceedings. The Supreme Court noted in petitions under Article 32 that the cases of the convicts undergoing life imprisonment would be dealt with in accordance with the policy as it existed prior to the amendment of 28 July 2021.
The Court, on 24 August 2022, ordered a tabulated statement to be prepared, including details of the offences, dates of conviction, appeal details, periods of imprisonment, bail status, and the status of premature release applications. A statement containing details of 512 prisoners was submitted by the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Framework
The judgment references Article 161 of the Constitution, which empowers the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. The Uttar Pradesh government’s premature release policy was framed under this constitutional provision.
The core of the legal discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of the various clauses of the premature release policy, specifically:
- Para 2(b) of the 1 August 2018 policy which allowed consideration for premature release for convicts who have completed 16 years of imprisonment without remission or 20 years with remission.
- Para 3(vi) of the 1 August 2018 policy which defined the prohibited category of convicts who had been convicted for the crimes related to incidents of massacre (three or more than three murders).
- Para 2(b) of the 28 July 2021 amended policy which added the age criteria of 60 years for premature release.
- Para 2(g) of the 28 July 2021 amended policy which allowed those in the prohibited category under para 3(vi) to be considered for release after completing 25 years without remission or 30 years with remission, provided they were 60 years of age.
- Para 2(b) of the 27 May 2022 amended policy which removed the age criteria of 60 years for premature release for convicts who have completed 16 years of imprisonment without remission or 20 years with remission.
- Para 2(g) of the 27 May 2022 amended policy which allowed those in the prohibited category under para 3(vi) to be considered for release after completing 25 years without remission or 30 years with remission, without the age criteria of 60 years.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that their applications for premature release should be considered based on the policy prevailing at the time of their conviction. They contended that the subsequent amendment of 28 July 2021, which introduced the age criteria of 60 years, should not apply to them. They also argued that the age criteria violated Article 21 of the Constitution by subjecting them to prolonged incarceration.
The State of Uttar Pradesh initially defended the amendments, but with the amendment of 27 May 2022, it supported the position that the cases should be considered as per the policy before the 28 July 2021 amendment.
The submissions made by the parties were as follows:
| Submission | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Applicable Policy | Premature release should be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction. | Initially defended the amendments, but later agreed that cases should be considered as per the policy before the 28 July 2021 amendment. |
| Age Criteria | The age criteria of 60 years introduced by the 28 July 2021 amendment is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. | Did not support the age criteria after the 27 May 2022 amendment. |
| Constitutional Rights | Prolonged incarceration due to the age criteria violates the right to life under Article 21. | Agreed to consider the cases as per the policy before the 28 July 2021 amendment. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section of the judgment. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:
- Whether the premature release of life convicts should be considered based on the policy prevailing at the time of their conviction or as per the amended policies.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Applicable Policy for Premature Release | The Court held that cases for premature release should be considered based on the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, subject to the observations contained in the judgment. | The Court emphasized that the restriction requiring a life convict to attain the age of sixty years was deleted by the amendment of 27 May 2022. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana v Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216] | Supreme Court of India | Held that an application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the accused was convicted of the offence by the trial court. |
| State of Haryana v Raj Kumar @ Bitu [(2021) 9 SCC 292] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the view that an application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the accused was convicted of the offence by the trial court. |
| Article 161 of the Constitution | Constitution of India | The Governor’s power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the parties and the authorities cited. The Court noted that the policy of 1 August 2018 was amended on 28 July 2021, which introduced the age criteria of 60 years for premature release. However, this amendment was subsequently modified on 27 May 2022, removing the age criteria.
The Court held that the cases for premature release should be considered based on the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, and that the restriction of 60 years of age introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021, stands deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022.
The Court observed that the implementation of the policy for premature release must be done objectively and transparently to uphold constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Applicable Policy | The Court directed that all cases for premature release shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, and that no case for premature release shall be rejected on the ground of age. |
| More Liberal Benefits | The Court directed that in the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any of the amendments 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. |
| No Application Required | The Court directed that no application is required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. |
The Court viewed the authorities as follows:
- State of Haryana v Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216] and State of Haryana v Raj Kumar @ Bitu [(2021) 9 SCC 292] were followed to highlight that the policy at the time of conviction should be considered.
- Article 161 of the Constitution was considered as the source of the Governor’s power to frame policies for remission.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the premature release policy is implemented fairly and transparently. The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, highlighting that the process must not be arbitrary. The Court also took into account the socio-economic conditions of many life convicts, noting their lack of resources and education, which impede their access to legal remedies. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to protect the liberty of those who have served their sentences and are eligible for release.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Guarantees (Articles 14 and 21) | 40% |
| Fair and Objective Implementation of Policy | 30% |
| Socio-economic conditions of convicts | 20% |
| Deprivation of liberty due to unfair process | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that the subsequent amendment of 27 May 2022, which removed the age criteria, should be applied to all eligible convicts. The Court also emphasized that the State should proactively consider cases for premature release without requiring applications from the convicts.
The Court stated, “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.”
The Court also stated, “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 noted, “The prison administration, legal services authorities at the district and state level and officers of the police department and the state must diligently ensure that cases of eligible prisoners are considered on the basis of policy parameters.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the final order.
Key Takeaways
- The policy for premature release of life convicts in Uttar Pradesh, as it existed on 1 August 2018, as further amended on 27 May 2022, will be applied.
- The age criteria of 60 years introduced by the 28 July 2021 amendment has been removed.
- The State is obligated to consider all eligible cases for premature release proactively, without requiring applications from convicts.
- District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are tasked with ensuring that all eligible cases are considered, and no prisoner is excluded from consideration.
- All decisions of premature release of convicts would be entitled to a beneficial reading of the policy.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- All cases for premature release shall be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended, and no case shall be rejected on the ground of age.
- Convicts entitled to more liberal benefits by subsequent amendments would be granted those benefits.
- No application is required from convicts for premature release, and all eligible cases shall be considered as per the policy.
- DLSAs shall coordinate with jail authorities to ensure all eligible cases are considered.
- DLSAs shall seek status reports on all life convicts and monitor the implementation of the directions.
- Applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously, with priority given to convicts above 70 years or suffering from terminal ailments.
- Interim bail granted by the Court shall continue until the disposal of the premature release application.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the premature release of life convicts must be considered based on the policy that was in effect at the time of their conviction, as amended subsequently to be more beneficial, and that the State must proactively consider such cases without requiring applications. This decision reinforces the principle that subsequent policy changes should not disadvantage convicts who were sentenced under a previous policy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr clarifies the premature release policy for life convicts in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the policy at the time of conviction, as amended, should be applied and that the State must proactively consider all eligible cases. This decision upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and the constitutional rights of life convicts.