The Supreme Court recently asked the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to formulate a policy for the premature release of imprisoned convicts on the basis of the period of imprisonment that they have undergone [Anand Kumar Singh v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while dealing with a plea by a life convict, Anand Kumar Singh.
The petitioner, Anand Kumar Singh, was a former Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer who had been convicted for murder and under the Arms Act, 1959 for the shooting three sepoys, including a senior officer, after he was scolded in the presence of others.
Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment, but sought early release from prison after spending around 18 years in jail.
The government opposed Singh's remission plea on the ground that Jammu and Kashmir did not have a policy for the premature release of prisoners on the basis of jail time served.
The Court, therefore, asked the government of Jammu and Kashmir to frame an appropriate policy on this aspect, that is, the premature release of convicts based on the time already served in prison.
"The petitioner’s prayer for premature release is being opposed by the State counsel on the solitary ground that there is no policy framed by the State for premature release on the basis of the period of incarceration. It seems to us that such a ground may not be tenable, as the formulation of policy falls within the exclusive domain of the State and, therefore, the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir is well advised to formulate an appropriate policy," the Court observed.
The Court proceeded to direct the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir to take up the matter with the competent authority, so that a policy decision may be taken as deemed fit by the authority.
The Court also directed the government counsel to submit a compliance report, before adjourning the matter till January 3, 2025.
Advocates Ranjeet Kumar, Simanta Kumar, Jaya Kiran, Jyoti Singh, Ajay Chand Sharma and Piyush Dwivedi represented the petitioner.
[Read Order]