Supreme Court directs uniform application of premature release policy in Uttar Pradesh: Rajkumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) INSC 718 (6 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 718

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J.

Can a state government adopt a pick-and-choose policy for the premature release of convicts? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized that the State must apply its premature release policies uniformly and transparently, ensuring that all eligible convicts are treated equally. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice J B Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case arose from a miscellaneous application in a writ petition concerning the premature release of convicts in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court had previously issued directions in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2023 INSC 718) regarding the premature release of life convicts. Despite these directions, the court noted that many convicts were still not being considered for premature release, leading to the present application.

The petitioner, Rajkumar, sought the court’s intervention to ensure that the State of Uttar Pradesh adhered to its own policies and rules regarding premature release. The petitioner argued that the state was not uniformly applying its policies, leading to arbitrary decisions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter after observing that its previous directions in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr were not being followed. The court noted that despite the existence of rules and policies, many eligible convicts were not being considered for premature release. The court directed the Director General of Police to provide details on the number of eligible convicts and the status of their applications.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for premature release in Uttar Pradesh is governed by the following:

• The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938
• The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938, specifically 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power to suspend or remit sentences.
• Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which specifies the minimum period of imprisonment for certain offenses.
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
• The Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual and the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual 2022.
• Standing Policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court noted that the State’s Standing Policy, as amended on 27 May 2022, removed the previous bar on considering cases for premature release before a convict reached 60 years of age. The court also reiterated that while the policy in place at the time of conviction generally applies, a more liberalized policy should be considered if introduced later.

Arguments

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae:

• The Amicus Curiae submitted that the State Government was adopting a “pick and choose” policy.
• It was argued that convicts whose convictions were prior to 1 August 2018 should have their cases considered under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Act, 1938, which allows for premature release after 14 years of actual sentence.
• Instead, the authorities were waiting for convicts to complete 16 years of actual sentence to consider their cases under a subsequent policy.

Submissions by the State of Uttar Pradesh:

The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted data on the number of prisoners eligible for premature release and the status of their applications. The State also detailed the various stages at which cases were pending.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was applying a uniform and transparent policy for the premature release of convicts, or if it was adopting an arbitrary “pick and choose” method.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court reiterated the directions given in Rashidul Jafar @ Chota Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr* regarding the premature release of life convicts.
• The Court relied on State of Haryana Vs Jagdish [(2010) 4 SCC 216]* and State of Haryana Vs Raj Kumar [(2021) 9 SCC 292]* to emphasize that the applicable policy for premature release is the one in effect on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policies.
• The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938, the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938, Section 432 and Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, and the Standing Policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh to establish the legal framework for premature release.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the State of Uttar Pradesh applied its premature release policies uniformly and transparently. The court emphasized that the State was bound by its own laws and policies and could not adopt arbitrary methods for selecting cases for premature release. The Court also highlighted the need to protect the rights of convicts, particularly those who may lack resources, education, or awareness.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles of equality and fairness, as well as the need for the State to adhere to its own laws and policies. The court also considered the factual aspects of the case, including the number of pending applications and the allegations of arbitrary decision-making.

The court rejected the State’s argument that it could apply a subsequent policy to convicts whose convictions were prior to the policy’s enactment. The court emphasized that while a more beneficial policy could be applied, the State could not arbitrarily choose which policy to apply.

The decision was reached by a unanimous three-judge bench. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that “each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a subsequent policy determination.” The court also noted that “The provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons” and that “an arbitrary method adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse.” The court further stated that the State is “bound by its own formulations of law.”

Key Takeaways

• The State must apply its premature release policies uniformly and transparently.
• The applicable policy for premature release is generally the one in effect on the date of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy.
• The State cannot adopt arbitrary methods for selecting cases for premature release.
• The State must expedite the pending cases and ensure compliance with its own policies.

This judgment has significant implications for the administration of justice in Uttar Pradesh. It ensures that all eligible convicts are treated equally and that the State adheres to its own legal framework. The judgment also serves as a reminder that the State cannot act arbitrarily and must uphold the principles of equality and fairness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to dispose of all pending cases for premature release on or before 30 April 2023. The Director General of Prisons was also directed to file a compliance report on affidavit by 4 May 2023.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State must apply its premature release policies uniformly and transparently, based on the legal position at the time of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy. This judgment reinforces the principle that the State cannot adopt arbitrary methods and must adhere to its own legal framework. This is not a change in the position of law, but rather a reiteration of existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajkumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant step towards ensuring that the State of Uttar Pradesh adheres to its own policies and rules regarding the premature release of convicts. The court’s emphasis on uniform and transparent application of the law will help protect the rights of convicts and prevent arbitrary decision-making.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Premature Release, Life Imprisonment, Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Act 1938, Section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Article 161, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Categories: Section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories: 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. It is often granted based on good behavior, completion of a certain portion of the sentence, or other factors.

Q: What was the issue in the Rajkumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?

A: The issue was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was applying a uniform and transparent policy for the premature release of convicts, or if it was adopting an arbitrary “pick and choose” method.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to apply its premature release policies uniformly and transparently, based on the legal position at the time of conviction, subject to any more beneficial subsequent policy. The court also directed the State to dispose of all pending cases by 30 April 2023.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment ensures that all eligible convicts are treated equally and that the State adheres to its own legal framework. It prevents arbitrary decision-making and protects the rights of convicts.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that the State must apply its premature release policies uniformly, the applicable policy is generally the one in effect on the date of conviction, the State cannot adopt arbitrary methods, and the State must expedite pending cases.