LI Network
Published on: October 16, 2023 at 14:21 IST
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed a case involving the delayed grant of permanent remission and called upon the Chhattisgarh State Government to ensure the prompt consideration of such cases, in line with the government’s established policy.
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s belated release and the apology offered by the Secretary for the delay in remission.
The Court recognized, “Although the request for permanent remission was granted belatedly, the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of the first respondent confirms that the petitioner was released on permanent remission on September 26, 2023.
The Secretary has expressed regret. Nevertheless, the petitioner was entitled to permanent remission much earlier, but the decision-making process was prolonged. We express hope and confidence that the State Government will take measures to prevent unnecessary delays in reviewing cases for permanent remission in accordance with its policy.”
During the previous hearing, the Court expressed concern regarding the actions of the Jail Superintendent, who presented a purported letter from a prisoner indicating the desire to withdraw a previously filed petition. The State also faced criticism from the Supreme Court for failing to comply with a prior directive issued on August 21.
The bench, of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, was addressing a writ petition under Article 32, directing the respondent to re-evaluate the petitioner’s case for early release by seeking a fresh opinion from the Sentencing Court.
In the present case, the petitioner, a 42-year-old convict, had been serving a life sentence for over 15 years without remission for a murder committed in 1999. The trial court imposed a life sentence, which was upheld by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and sentence was also dismissed in 2015.
The Court stressed that, regardless of the letter’s origin, it was the Jail Superintendent’s duty to inform the petitioner about the consequences of unconditionally withdrawing the Writ Petition. Additionally, the Court recommended that the petitioner should have been referred to a legal aid lawyer for proper advice, as legal aid lawyers routinely visit prisons.
The Court ordered that moving forward, the Jail Authorities in the State should ensure that such precautions are taken, and prisoners are adequately informed of the ramifications of their actions.
It was underscored, “Before accepting such a letter from the petitioner, he should have been directed to a legal aid lawyer who could have provided him with appropriate guidance. Henceforth, this precaution shall be taken by the Jail Authorities in the State.”
Case title: Chain Singh V. State of Chhattisgarh.
Also Read: When can a prisoner be released early?
