BACHCHEY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Backdrop :-We had issued several directions by our order dated 19.4.2004. The original records of the cases related to 108 prisoners maintained at the Prisons Section of the secretariat at Lucknow and at the Varanasi Central Jail were also produced before us on 6.7.2004 and 8.7.2004. Thereafter on the previous hearing on 8.7.2004 we had orally directed the Secretary Legal Services Authority, and the Deputy Chief Probation Officer who were present to come out with concrete suggestions on how legal aid to convicts in prison who had served over 14 years could be made more effective and timely, and how the Probation Officer could ensure greater objectivity in the reports submitted by the District Probation Officers. Several affidavits and reports of different authorities have been filed on 6.7.2004 and 30.7.2004. The reports show that there are 510 prisoners in various prisons in U.P. who have undergone over 14 years in prison. These include 249 prisoners who were convicted prior to 18.12.1978, and 261 prisoners who were convicted after that date.

(2.) DISTURBING Findings : We must say that even on a cursory perusal of the material, records and affidavits before us, we are greatly disturbed with the approach adopted by the State Government in dealing with the cases of prisoners who have undergone over 14 years in prison and were eligible for consideration of their cases for pre-mature release under the Jail Manual and the Prisoners Release on Probation Act. The two most disturbing features are :

(3.) THE cost to the State of keeping a prisoner who has lost the potentiality of committing a future crime is also a factor to be taken into account for not allowing prisoners to remain in jail unnecessarily for unlimited periods of time. Government officials are mistaken if they think that the safest course is either to reject or to postpone an application for premature release. Such a cavalier rejection of the application of the convict for premature release, ignoring the criteria contained in the jail manual, Prisoners Release on Probation Act or in decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court apart from being a human rights violation of the convict, also violates, the convict's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It may on occasion invite the censure of the Court against negligent authorities. It is too late in the day for the authorities to contend that these fundamental rights are shut out before the locked doors of the prison. Likewise, the fear of authorities that they would lay themselves open to charges of corruption if they were to allow any application for premature release is unfounded. If the orders are passed honestly on objective criteria laid down in the statutes, without discrimination between similarly placed prisoners, in line with the judicial dicta of this Court and the Apex Court, and decisions are based on concrete verifiable material, there is no reason for the authorities to apprehend that such decisions on individual cases on merit would be frowned upon by Courts.