RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 06-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No 336 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Remission: Pre-mature release – Remission plea of five
hundred and twelve convicts undergoing a sentence of imprisonment
for life in the State of UP – In 2021, amendment brought to the
Standing Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts of
2018 – Earlier policy of the year 2018 modified so as to provide
that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be
released until the age of sixty years is attained – Challenge to, on
the ground that the plea for premature release must be considered
on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of conviction and that
a subsequent policy which operates to restrict the ambit of a policy
prevailing on the date of conviction must not be allowed to obstruct
the plea for release; and that the requirement that a convict cannot
be considered for premature release before the age of sixty would
violate the right to life u/Art.21 by subjecting a convict to long
years of incarceration – Held: Implementation of the said policy
for premature release is to be carried out in an objective and
transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the
constitutional guarantees u/Art. 14 and 21 – Many of these life
convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few
or no resources – Lack of literacy, education and social support
structures impede their right to access legal remedies – Once the
State has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature
release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to
all eligible convicts – Constitutional guarantees against arbitrary
treatment and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must
not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications
for premature release in terms of the policy – In view thereof, issuance
of directions to UP Government on premature release – Instant cases
for premature release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 475
475
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
to be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018 –
Restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release
until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by the
policy of 28 July 2021 is deleted, thus, no case for premature release
to be rejected on that ground – In case, any convict is entitled to
more liberal benefits by any of the amendments brought about
subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant
of premature release would be considered accordingly – All decisions
of premature release of convicts to be entitled to a beneficial reading
of the policy – Constitution of India – Art. 14 and 21.
State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216 : [2010]
3 SCR 716; State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu
(2021) 9 SCC 292; Dev Nath Singh v. State of U P;
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 528 of 2021 decided on 21
February 2022; Rajkumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
Writ Petition (Crl) No 36 of 2022 decided on 11 March
2022; Brij Bhushan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ
Petition (Crl) No 75 of 2022 decided on 14 March
2022 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 3 SCR 716
referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 336 of 2019.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
With
W.P. (CRL.) Nos.398, 376, 226 of 2021, 117, 265, 306, 360, 348
of 2020, 112, 127, 134, 143, 147, 142, 149, 153, 369, 397, 421, 446, 502,
488, 514, 497, 499, 494, 508 of 2021, 01 of 2022, 123, 7, 23, 189, 277 of
2020, 75 of 2021, 341, 336 of 2020, 15 of 2021, 417 of 2020, 61, 86, 115,
122 of 2021, 397 of 2020, 35 of 2021, 414, 407, 421, 373 of 2020, 67 of
2022.
Z. U. Khan, Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra,
Shikhar Kaushal, Imran Ali Khan, Ms. Nida Khan, Shubham Arora, Rohit
Amit Sthalekar, Yunus Malik, Aman Malik, Anish Maheshwari,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Samir Malik,  Rishi Malhotra, Jaydeep Pati, Jetendra
Singh, Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Ms. Kalpana Sabharwal, Ms. Priyanka
Singh, Ms. Manju Jetley, Varun Punia, K. L. Janjani, Anil Kumar Pandey,
Shailja Kant Dubey, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Aarif Ali, Rizwan Ahmad,
Pankaj Tiwari, Mujahid Ahmad, Mohit Kumar, Mushtaq Ahmed, Aman
Kumar Raizada, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Sanjay
Mani Tripathi, V. Elangovan, Ali Jethmalani,   Pawan K. Sharma, Sura

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.