SC orders states and UTs to upload waiver policy and provide reasons for rejection | Latest news India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed states and Union Territories to facilitate remission of life convicts by providing the copy of the remission policy to each prison and then uploading it on the government website and issuing the order refusing remission within a week to the convict concerned so that an appeal can be submitted.

A bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka passed the order while considering a suo motu petition on release of prisoners on bail or remission to reduce overcrowding in the jails.

While going through the responses of states, the bench found that in Kerala, the waiver policy uploaded on the state website was in Malayalam, while Andhra Pradesh proposed to make changes in the waiver policy, but it was not available in the public domain. Further, the court noted that one of its orders dated July 2021 required the issuance of reasoned orders while denying grant of anticipatory release to life convicts.

Noting these discrepancies, the bench, also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih, has issued common directions to all states and universities to henceforth make available a copy of the existing waiver policy or the amended policy (with amendments from time to time) which will be available in every prison should be provided. for the benefit of convicts. Additionally, it asked the state to upload an English translation of the policy on the state’s official website.

“We make it clear that the state will ensure that rejection orders are communicated to the convicts within one week of passing the order. “If the rejection order does not contain reasons, the reason cited by the Sentence Review Board in each district (which considers the grant of remission as per the state remission policy) shall be forwarded to the convicts,” the court said.

In the event that the convict cannot appeal against the order refusing release, the court directed the district legal department to provide them with legal aid. It also ruled that states should not reject remission citing “stereotypical circumstances,” as the decision must be made after assessing the facts of each case.

Senior counsel Liz Mathew, who assisted the court as amicus curiae, presented reports from each state showing that remission cases of several convicts had been stayed pending the hearing of their appeals by the Supreme Court or the High Court. In some cases, the state had also filed appeals seeking the death penalty.

“Some states are not processing expungement requests because an appeal against the conviction is pending. This is no reason not to consider the requests,” the court said.

The court posted the matter for further consideration on December 3 and asked Mathew and other lawyers appearing for states to suggest whether the state is obliged to consider applications from all life convicts who have crossed the threshold period of 14 years or more , which entitles them to remission, without the convicted person having submitted a request.