Supreme Court directs Uttar Pradesh Govt to re-examine policy for premature release of life term convicts

As per the policy, all convicts who have completed the age of 60 and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission, are eligible to be considered for premature release

February 03, 2022 02:04 pm | Updated 02:04 pm IST - New Delhi

NEW DELHI, 09/08/2013: INDEX-Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. August 09, 2013. Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

NEW DELHI, 09/08/2013: INDEX-Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. August 09, 2013. Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to re-examine its policy for premature release of life term convicts prescribing a minimum age of 60 years saying prima-facie it does not seem to be sustainable.

A Bench comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh observed this while considering an appeal by a convict seeking a direction for his premature release from prison.

As per the policy, all convicts who have completed the age of 60 and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission, are eligible to be considered for premature release.

“We 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 Bench said.

“Though we are not required to test this aspect, we call upon the State Government to re-examine this part of the policy which prima-facie does not seems to be sustainable more so in view of the illustration we have just noted above and thus we call upon the State Government to take a fresh look at the insertion of this clause. The needful be done within four months,” it said.

The top court directed the competent authority to consider the plea by the convict within three months.

“We, thus, issue a dual direction i.e. of consideration of the case of the petitioner for remission within three months and for consideration of the amendment to the Policy of 2021 within a period of four months...

“We may note that according to the counsel for the State the remission policy is also under challenge before this Court but then that cannot preclude the State itself from re-visiting the issue,” the Bench said in a recent order.

The apex court noted that the convict as on date has already served over 22 years in jail without remission and almost 28 years with remission and granted him bail.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.