Delay in processing remission plea: Supreme Court pulls up UP Prisons official for false statement

The Supreme Court recently pulled up the Principal Secretary of Uttar Pradesh's Prison Administration and Reforms Department for making contradictory statements while trying to explain the delay in processing a convict's plea for remission [Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]..A Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that statements in an affidavit filed by the secretary contradicted his earlier stand that the Chief Minister's Secretariat delayed the processing of the remission file because a Model Code of Conduct was in force. "We have perused the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, Prison Administration and Reforms Department, State of Uttar Pradesh. The stand taken on oath in the said affidavit affirmed on 14th August, 2024 is completely different from the solemn statements made by the same officer which were recorded in this Court's order dated 12th August, 2024. In fact, some of the statements made in the affidavit including the statement made in clause (g) of paragraph 5 of the affidavit appear to be false," the Court noted in its August 20 order.The Court expressed displeasure over such contradictory submissions and warned the principal secretary of criminal contempt proceedings.However, the Bench also allowed time to secretary to file another affidavit if he wished to clarify his position..The Principal Secretary was also ordered to remain personally present on August 27, when the matter will be heard next."Even today, the Principal Secretary is present in Court. We are putting him to notice that we may consider of issuing a notice of criminal contempt to him. If he wants to file further affidavit, he is free to file the same till the next date," the Court ordered.The Court proceeded to grant temporary bail to the convict (Ashok) the processing of whose remission plea had been delayed..On August 12, the top court had directed the Principal Secretary to file an affidavit clarifying a submission that the Chief Minister's Secretariat had refused to accept Ashok's remission file due to the Model Code of Conduct."This is brazen. He is playing with the fundamental rights of convicts," a visibly upset Justice Oka had said during the August 12 hearing.The Court went on to order the Secretary to file an affidavit affirming that the Chief Minister's Secretariat did not accept the file, if that was actually the case. .On perusing the affidavit filed subsequently by the Principal Secretary, the Bench noted that the file in focus did not move even after May 13 when the Court had called for the file to be processed in a time-bound manner (within 1 month). The file remained unmoved till June 6 (when the Model Code of Conduct ended), the Court pointed out. The Court further found that the affidavit conveyed an impression that the file had been delivered to the Governor by the appropriate Minister, without indicating that it was sent to the Chief Minister's office only on August 5. Furthermore, it was noted in the file sent to the Chief Minister on August 5 was signed by him the same day before the Governor signed it on August 13.The Court noted that all of these events contradicted the Secretary's earlier stance that the file could not be processed because of the Model Code of Conduct."A complete breach of the order dated 13th May, 2024 is writ large on the file," the Court said..Senior Advocate Purvish Jitender Malkan, advocates CK Rai, Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Manish Kumar, Aqsa, Mohan Lal, Anuradha Roy and Vinay Kumar Gupta, appeared for the convict, Ashok.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the Centre while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Sharan Thakur, Senior AAGs Garima Prasad and Sakshi Kakkar and advocate Anchit Singla, appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..On a related note, the Uttar Pradesh authorities has also run into similar trouble for delays in processing a remission application by another convict, Kuldeep. In that case as well, the Court has come down heavily on the State's lackadaisical approach in not complying with court-mandated timelines..[Read Order]