The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed states and Union territories to facilitate remission of life convicts by supplying the copy of the remission policy to each prison, besides uploading it on the government website and intimate the order denying remission within one week to the concerned convict to enable filing an appeal.
A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka passed the order while considering a suo motu petition on the release of prisoners on bail or remission to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
Going through responses received from states, the bench found that in Kerala, the remission policy uploaded on the state website was in Malayalam while Andhra Pradesh proposed to bring changes to its remission policy, but it was not available in public domain. Further, the bench noted that one of its orders passed in July 2021 required reasoned orders to be passed while refusing grant of premature release to life convicts.
Noting these discrepancies, the bench, also comprising justice Augustine George Masih passed common directions to all states and UTs to henceforth make available a copy of its existing remission policy or the modified policy (with amendments from time to time) to be provided at each jail for the benefit of convicts. Additionally, it asked the state to upload an English translation of the policy on the official website of the state.
“We make it clear that the state shall ensure rejection orders are communicated to the convicts within 1 week of the passing of the order. If the rejection order does not contain reasons, the reason cited by the Sentence Review Board in each district (that considers grant of remission as per the state remission policy) shall be forwarded to the convicts,” the bench said.
In the event the convict is not able to appeal against the order denying release, the bench directed the district legal service authority to provide them with legal aid. It also held that states are not to reject remission citing “stereotype conditions” as the decision should be taken after regarding facts of each case.
Senior advocate Liz Mathew, assisting the court as amicus curiae, presented reports from each state which showed that remission cases of several convicts was put on hold pending consideration of their appeals by the high court or Supreme Court. In some cases, state too had appealed seeking death sentence.
“Some states are not processing applications for remission on the ground that appeals against conviction are pending. This is no ground not to consider the applications,” the court said.
Posting the matter for further consideration on December 3, the bench asked Mathew and other lawyers appearing for states to suggest whether state is duty-bound to consider applications of all life convicts who have crossed the threshold period of 14 years or more, which entitles them for remission, without the convict making any application.