The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Prisons to file his stand on a personal affidavit on whether the State had complied with a 2022 judgment directing it to consider the premature release of certain prisoners in line with a 2018 policy.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha also have issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.
The CJI orally remarked that the State Legal Services will visit all prisons to find out about all such inmates etc.
The Court has asked the DG prisons to five details in a personal affidavit about the Number of steps which have been taken in pursuance of the judgment in Rashidul Jafar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the institutional arrangements put in place
It is also asked about the number of convicts who are eligible for premature release district-wise,along with the cases that have been considered for premature release since the judgment of Rashidul Zafar
The Court also asked about the number of cases that remain pending and the time period by which they shall be considered.
The Bench spoke about the Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January) issued in August 2018.
The policy set out categories of convicts entitled to premature release.
The order of today asked for an affidavit was passed in compliance to a decision of the top court rendered on September 6, 2022.
The decision said that the cases pertaining to of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State who were eligible to be considered for premature release in terms of the policy were to be considered in terms of the procedure stipulated in the policy.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justice Hema Kohli said that all decisions of premature release of convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy.
The court also ordered that no application was required to be submitted by a convict undergoing life imprisonment for premature release.
The Court also gave instructions to the District Legal Services Authority of the State, in coordination with the jail authorities to take necessary steps for ensuring that all eligible cases of prisoners entitled to premature release were duly considered.