Supreme Court Seeks Names from UP CMO on Remission File Refusal, Threatens Contempt

The Supreme Court has warned of contempt action against officials in Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's office. The court sought the names of those who refused to accept remission plea files due to the model code of conduct. Remission involves reducing or cancelling part of a prison sentence.

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed displeasure over the state's delay in processing remission pleas. They directed Rajesh Kumar Singh, principal secretary of Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration Department, to provide details on an affidavit. The bench stated, "We direct Rajesh Kumar Singh to file an affidavit giving details, such as names of the officers in the office of the Secretariat of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh who refused to accept the file."

Remission Plea Delays

The court noted that despite its order, remission files were not processed within the specified time frame. The bench remarked, "He has hardly any explanation to offer for the long delay in making compliance with the orders of this court and now he is giving an excuse that the file is pending with the competent authority."

The matter concerns a remission plea by convict Kuldeep under state policy. The court highlighted that no decision had been made by the state government yet. Justice Oka questioned who would compensate prisoners for delays if they are found entitled to premature release.

Compliance Issues

The bench criticised Rajesh Kumar Singh's response in a writ petition. It noted that despite a clear order from May 13, 2024, stating that the code of conduct would not hinder remission considerations, files were not accepted until after the code expired.

On August 5, the court observed that four months had passed since its April 10 order directing Uttar Pradesh to consider the petitioner's permanent remission case. The state requested two more months, which indicated reluctance to consider the petitioner's case.

Further Directions

The bench directed Singh to file an affidavit by August 14 detailing efforts made to comply with court orders. It also asked for necessary correspondence with the chief minister's secretariat regarding one convict's remission.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on August 20. It emphasised that officials must value court orders, especially in matters related to human liberty.

Justice Oka stressed that delays in processing remission pleas could affect prisoners' rights. He asked, "Suppose a person is granted premature release, who is going to compensate him for this delay if he is found entitled to premature release?"

The bench noted that Uttar Pradesh repeatedly failed to implement court orders on premature release within set timeframes. It directed the principal secretary of prison administration to attend court via video conference.

In April, the Supreme Court granted six weeks for Uttar Pradesh to comply with its order. By July 10, no order had been passed despite jail authorities recommending the petitioner's case favourably.

The bench expressed its intent to correct systemic issues in compliance with court orders. It stated, "We want to correct this system."

The Supreme Court's actions highlight its commitment to ensuring timely consideration of remission pleas and upholding prisoners' rights.