The Supreme Court has issued a warning of contempt action against officers in the office of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, seeking the names of officials who refused to accept files related to remission pleas of convicted prisoners due to the enforcement of the model code of conduct.
Remission refers to the cancellation or reduction of a part of a prisoner’s sentence. Under Section 432 of the CrPC, state governments have the authority to remit the whole or part of a convict’s sentence based on factors such as the prisoner’s conduct, rehabilitation, health, and time served.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed displeasure with the state government for failing to process remission pleas within the specified time frame, despite a court order. The bench directed Rajesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration Department, to submit an affidavit detailing the names of the officers who refused to accept the files.
“We direct Rajesh Kumar Singh to file an affidavit providing the names of the officers in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat who refused to accept the file. He will also record whether any effort was made to inform the concerned officers that the government was bound by the order of this court dated May 13, 2024,” the bench stated.
The court, which has scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 20, was addressing a remission plea by convict Kuldeep under the applicable state policy. The bench noted that, “as of today,” no decision had been made by the state government in this case.
The court was particularly troubled by Rajesh Kumar Singh’s response, who claimed that despite the court’s order on May 13, 2024, stating that the code of conduct would not obstruct the state government’s consideration of the petitioner’s case for permanent remission, the file forwarded to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat was not accepted. The file was ultimately sent to the Secretariat only after the expiry of the code of conduct.
Warning of contempt action against the officials, the bench stated, “Before we issue a notice of contempt to the appropriate officers of the State Government, we direct Rajesh Kumar Singh to file an affidavit, under oath, detailing what he has orally stated before us.” The bench noted that Singh, who appeared in court following its August 5 order, failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay in processing the remission files.
The bench also directed that all necessary correspondence with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat regarding the remission of one of the convicts be placed on record. The affidavit is to be filed by August 14, as directed by the bench.
The court remarked that officials do not appear to value court orders, even in matters concerning human liberty. Justice Oka questioned who would compensate the prisoner for the delay in processing the remission plea, asking, “If a person is granted premature release, who is going to compensate him for this delay if he is found entitled to premature release?”
On August 5, the court noted that almost four months had passed since its April 10 order directing the Uttar Pradesh government to consider the petitioner’s case for permanent remission. The court expressed concern that the state had not yet complied with its order and directed the Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration Department to appear before the court via video conference.
The bench criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for its failure to comply with its order, stating, “We want to correct this system.” In April, the court had given the Uttar Pradesh government six weeks to act. However, when the matter was heard again on July 10, the court was informed that no order had been passed by the state government, despite favorable recommendations from jail authorities regarding the petitioner’s case.
