Supreme Court Directs Uniform Application of Premature Release Policies in Uttar Pradesh

Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2023. Citation: (Not Available in the document). Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha J, and J B Pardiwala J. Can a state government adopt a pick-and-choose policy while deciding on the premature release of convicts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, emphasizing the need for uniform and transparent application of rules and policies. The bench comprised Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The Supreme Court was hearing a miscellaneous application related to the premature release of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh. The Court had previously issued directions in the case of Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, concerning the premature release of life convicts. Following this, numerous petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking premature release for individual convicts whose cases were not being considered.

The State of Uttar Pradesh has a system for considering premature release under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 and the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938. Additionally, a ‘Nominal Roll’ and an ‘Infirmity Roll’ are prepared as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual. Mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution are also considered by the Governor. The State formulated a Standing Policy for premature release on 1 August 2018, which was amended on 27 May 2022.

Initially, the 2018 policy prohibited premature release for convicts under 60 years of age. This restriction was challenged, leading to the Rashidul Jafar judgment, which directed that while the policy on the date of conviction generally applies, a more liberalized subsequent policy should also be considered. Despite this, the Court noted that cases were still being brought before it, indicating that eligible convicts were not being considered for premature release.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, while hearing the miscellaneous application, had directed the Director General of Police to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to implement the Rashidul Jafar judgment. The affidavit provided data on the number of eligible convicts and the status of their cases. The Court noted that despite the judgment, cases were still pending, and a “pick and choose” policy was being adopted by the State Government.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for premature release in Uttar Pradesh includes:

• The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938
• The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938, particularly Rule 4, which states:

  “4. Eligibility for release.— Any prisoner other than a prisoner specified in Rule 3, may be eligible for consideration by the State Government for release on licence–
  (i) if he is a prisoner to whom Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies and has served imprisonment for a total period of fourteen years;
  (ii) if he is a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life to whom Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply and has served imprisonment for a total period of fourteen years with remissions; and
  (iii) in any other case if he has served one-third without remissions of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced.”

• Section 432 and Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deal with the preparation of ‘Nominal Rolls’ and ‘Infirmity Rolls’.
• Paragraph 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual (replaced by Para 180 of the Jail Manual 2022) and paragraphs 195, 196, and 197 (replaced by paragraphs 177 to 179 of the Jail Manual 2022).
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the Governor’s power to grant pardons, reprieves, etc.
• Standing Policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh for premature release of prisoners, initially formulated on 1 August 2018 and amended on 27 May 2022.

The Supreme Court has held that the policy applicable on the date of conviction governs premature release, but a more liberalized subsequent policy should also be considered.

Arguments

The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, pointed out that the State Government was adopting a “pick and choose” policy. Though the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Act, 1938, stipulates that a convict who has served 14 years of actual sentence is eligible for premature release, the authorities were waiting for convicts to complete 16 years of actual sentence to consider their cases under the subsequent policy. This was seen as an arbitrary practice.

The State, on the other hand, was not able to justify the delay in processing the applications for premature release, and the court noted that the State is bound by its own rules and policies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was arbitrarily applying its premature release policies, and if so, what directions were needed to ensure uniform application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not uniformly applying its premature release policies. The Court emphasized that the State is bound by its own rules and policies and cannot adopt an arbitrary “pick and choose” method. The Court directed that each case for premature release must be decided based on the legal position as it stood on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, emphasizing the need to consider more liberalized subsequent policies for premature release.
• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216] and State of Haryana Vs Raj Kumar [(2021) 9 SCC 292], stating that the policy applicable on the date of conviction governs premature release.
• The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 and the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938, highlighting the eligibility criteria for premature release.
• The Court considered Section 432 and Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deal with the preparation of ‘Nominal Rolls’ and ‘Infirmity Rolls’.
• The Court also considered Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the Governor’s power to grant pardons, reprieves, etc.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fairness, transparency, and uniformity in the application of laws and policies. The Court was concerned that the State Government was not adhering to its own rules, leading to arbitrary decisions that disproportionately affected vulnerable individuals. The Court emphasized that a “pick and choose” policy is unacceptable and that all similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the law.

The Court’s reasoning was driven more by legal principles and the need for procedural fairness, rather than the specific factual circumstances of individual cases.

The Court’s decision was aimed at ensuring that the State follows its own rules and policies, thereby promoting fairness and transparency in the premature release process.

The Supreme Court quoted:

• “The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law.”
• “Since there are legal provisions which hold the field, it is not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature release.”
• “The provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The State must apply its premature release policies uniformly and transparently.
• A “pick and choose” policy is not permissible.
• Each case should be decided based on the legal position on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy.
• The State is bound by its own rules and policies.
• The Supreme Court has set a deadline of 30 April 2023 for the disposal of all pending cases.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the State must act fairly and consistently when dealing with the liberty of individuals. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to established rules and policies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all pending cases of premature release must be disposed of on or before 30 April 2023. The Director General of Prisons was also directed to file a compliance report on affidavit before the Court on 4 May 2023.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot adopt an arbitrary “pick and choose” policy while deciding on premature release of convicts. It must strictly adhere to its own rules and policies, ensuring that each case is decided based on the legal position on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy. This judgment reinforces the principle of uniform application of law and emphasizes the importance of transparency and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajkumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant step towards ensuring that premature release policies are applied fairly and consistently in Uttar Pradesh. By directing the State to adhere to its own rules and policies and setting a deadline for the disposal of pending cases, the Court has emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system. This judgment will have a far-reaching impact on the lives of numerous convicts awaiting consideration for premature release.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Premature Release

Child Category: Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938

Child Category: Section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Article 161, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is premature release?

A: Premature release is the release of a prisoner from jail before the completion of their full sentence, often based on good behavior or other considerations.

Q: What was the issue in this case?

A: The issue was that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not uniformly applying its policies for premature release, leading to arbitrary decisions.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court directed the State to apply its policies uniformly, ensuring that each case is decided based on the legal position on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment ensures that the State cannot adopt an arbitrary “pick and choose” policy and must adhere to its own rules and policies, promoting fairness and transparency.

Q: What is the deadline for the disposal of pending cases?

A: The Supreme Court has set a deadline of 30 April 2023 for the disposal of all pending cases of premature release.