Policy For Premature Release Of Life Convicts Must Be Implemented In Objective & Transparent Manner

Case: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P. And Anr.

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli

Case No.: WP(Crl) No. 336/2019

Court Observation: “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. Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few or no resources. Lack of literacy, education and social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies. Once the state has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all eligible convicts. 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 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. We have gained a distinct impression, based on the cases which have come before the court here and even earlier that there is a general apathy towards ensuring that the rights which have been made available to convicts who have served out their sentences in terms of the policy are realized. This results in the deprivation of liberty of those who are entitled to be released. They languish in overcrowded jails. Their poverty, illiteracy and disabilities occasioned by long years of incarceration are compounded by the absence of supportive social and legal structures. The promise of equality in our Constitution would not be fulfilled if liberty were to be conditional on an individual’s resources, which unfortunately many of these cases provide hard evidence of. This situation must change and hence this court has had to step in. We now proceed to formulate peremptory directions”.

Previous Posts

Matrimonial Offences Including S.498A IPC May Be Quashed In Exercise Of Powers U/S 482 CrPC When Parties Arrive At Settlement: J&K&L High Court

State Does Not Have Unlimited Resources, Institutions That Waive Arrears To Seek Grant-In-Aid Can’t Be Permitted To Take U-Turn: Uttarakhand HC

Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Court In Area Where Minor Ordinarily Resides Has Jurisdiction U/S 25 Guardians & Wards Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala High Court

Keywords

Premature Release Of Life Convicts,