Supreme Court directs reconsideration of premature release policy for life convicts: Mata Prasad vs. State of U.P. (31 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 31st January 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can a state government change its policy on premature release of prisoners to the disadvantage of those already convicted? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a life convict was seeking premature release based on the policy prevalent at the time of his conviction. The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to reconsider its policy and also granted interim bail to the petitioner. This judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with Justice M.M. Sundresh concurring.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mata Prasad, along with his younger brother and father, was convicted for offences under Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court on 30th September 2004 in Session Trial No.208 of 1999, arising from FIR No.380/1999 at P.S. Gosaiganj, Sultanpur. Mata Prasad filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was still pending after 17 years.

Having completed 14 years of imprisonment, Mata Prasad applied for premature release under the U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938. His application was rejected on 28th April 2017. He then sought release under a Government Order (G.O.) dated 1st August 2018, which provided a policy for premature release of prisoners on Republic Day each year. This policy allowed for the release of male life convicts who had served 16 years of actual imprisonment without remission and 20 years with remission, provided their crimes were not in a restricted category. Mata Prasad’s application under this policy was also rejected on 4th November 2019, despite the fact that the government had released 1000 prisoners under the same policy between 2018 and 2021.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, Mata Prasad, initially filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against his conviction and sentence. However, this appeal remained pending for 17 years. Subsequently, Mata Prasad applied for premature release under the U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938, which was rejected. He then sought release under the Government Order dated 1st August 2018. When that was also rejected, he approached the Supreme Court of India by way of a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the concept of common intention.
• U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938: This act provides for the release of prisoners on probation in Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court also considered the policy for premature release issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, specifically the Government Order dated 1st August 2018, and its subsequent amendment on 28th July 2021. The 2018 policy allowed for the premature release of male life convicts who had served 16 years of actual imprisonment without remission and 20 years with remission. The 2021 amendment introduced a minimum age of 60 years for consideration of premature release, requiring 20 years of custody without remission and 25 years with remission. The court also took into consideration the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Raj Kumar @ Bittu [2021 (9) SCC 292], which held that the policy prevalent at the time of conviction should be considered for premature release.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that he was eligible for premature release under the policy dated 1st August 2018, as he had completed more than 16 years of actual imprisonment without remission and 20 years with remission.
• He contended that the government had released 1000 prisoners under the same policy between 2018 and 2021, and his case should also be considered.
• The petitioner submitted that his proposal for release was recommended on 26th January 2020 but was not acted upon, and his case was again not considered on 26th January 2021 without any reason.
• The petitioner argued that the subsequent amendment to the policy on 28th July 2021, which introduced a minimum age of 60 years, should not apply to his case as it was introduced after his conviction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State acknowledged that the petitioner’s case would be covered under the 2018 policy but not under the 2021 policy due to the age criteria.
• The State submitted that the 2021 policy requires convicts to have completed 60 years of age, with 20 years of custody without remission and 25 years with remission.
• The State relied on the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Raj Kumar @ Bittu [2021 (9) SCC 292], admitting that the policy prevalent at the time of conviction should be considered for premature release.
• The State also pointed out that the petitioner’s appeal was pending before the High Court and that he could have moved the High Court for suspension of sentence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court dealt with were:

1. Whether the petitioner was eligible for premature release under the policy dated 1st August 2018.
2. Whether the amended policy of 28th July 2021, prescribing a minimum age of 60 years, should apply to the petitioner.
3. Whether the pendency of the petitioner’s appeal before the High Court would preclude the State Government from considering his case for remission.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Haryana & Ors. V. Raj Kumar @ Bittu [2021 (9) SCC 292]*, stating that the policy for premature release prevalent at the time of conviction should be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a prisoner’s eligibility for premature release should be determined by the policy in effect at the time of their conviction. The court also expressed concern over the 2021 policy’s minimum age requirement, which could potentially lead to very long sentences for young offenders. The court also noted that the State Government had released 1000 prisoners under the 2018 policy, and therefore, the petitioner’s case should also be considered under the same policy. The court also held that the pendency of the appeal does not preclude consideration for remission.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s case for premature release should be considered under the policy that was in effect at the time of his conviction, i.e., the policy dated 1st August 2018. The Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the petitioner’s case for remission within three months. The Court also directed the State Government to re-examine the 2021 policy, particularly the clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years. The Court noted that the 2021 policy could lead to young offenders serving very long sentences before their cases for remission could be considered. The Court also granted bail to the petitioner pending the consideration of his case for remission. The Court observed that the State Government is not precluded from examining the case of the petitioner for remission if an appeal is pending before the High Court.

The Court stated, “We are really not required to go into this aspect in view of the aforesaid but would like to express a great doubt on the validity of this clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years which would imply that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered.”

The Court also noted, “It cannot be said that the State Government is precluded from examining the case of the petitioner for remission if an appeal is pending before the High Court and from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it does appear that petitioner seems to have lost interest even in possibly prosecuting the appeal.”

The Court further added, “In view of the fact that the petitioner as on date has already served about 22½ years without remission and almost 28 years with remission, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in the meantime pending consideration in pursuance to our aforesaid directions.”

Key Takeaways

• The policy for premature release of prisoners that is in effect at the time of their conviction should be applied.
• State governments should be cautious when introducing policies that could adversely affect prisoners already serving sentences.
• Minimum age requirements for premature release should be carefully considered to avoid excessively long sentences for young offenders.
• The pendency of an appeal does not preclude the State Government from considering a prisoner’s case for remission.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s case for remission within three months.
• The State Government was directed to re-examine the 2021 policy, particularly the clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years, within four months.
• The petitioner was granted bail pending the consideration of his case for remission.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the policy for premature release of prisoners prevalent at the time of their conviction should be applied. This is in line with the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Raj Kumar @ Bittu [2021 (9) SCC 292]. The Court also expressed concerns about the 2021 policy prescribing a minimum age of 60 years, which could lead to very long sentences for young offenders. This indicates a potential shift in the Court’s approach towards policies that may have a disproportionately harsh impact on certain categories of prisoners.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mata Prasad vs. State of U.P. is significant for reinforcing the principle that prisoners are entitled to have their cases for premature release considered under the policy in effect at the time of their conviction. The Court’s direction to re-examine the 2021 policy also highlights the need for careful consideration of the impact of such policies on prisoners, particularly young offenders. The grant of interim bail to the petitioner demonstrates the Court’s concern for the prolonged incarceration of prisoners and its willingness to provide interim relief.