Supreme Court Criticizes Uttar Pradesh for Delays in Remission Applications
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed their displeasure at the State's repeated delays. When the State's lawyer requested additional time to examine the matter, Justice Oka sharply questioned the four-month delay despite the Court's two-month directive. He stated, "Four months have passed? We gave you two months. And now still you ask for two more months to decide the plea. Nothing has been done. As far as State of UP is considered, we have seen that the orders passed by this court for considering remission plea of accused persons in a specific time is not at all considered."
In response to the continuous delays, the Bench directed the concerned Principal Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to appear before the Court via video conference on August 19. The Justices emphasized the need to correct systemic issues, with Justice Oka remarking, "We want to correct the system in which you are falling. We direct Principal Secretary of the concerned department to remain present via VC on August 19."
The Supreme Court's February 2023 directives to the State of UP were aimed at institutionalizing the remission process and minimizing arbitrariness. Among the directions, the Court mandated the State to comply strictly with existing laws regarding premature release. Notably, a three-month timeline was established for decision-making in remission matters. Additionally, the Court ordered the creation of an online dashboard to provide information on all convicts and their eligibility dates for premature release.
The petitioner's legal team included Advocates Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Gopal Singh, Anjale Kumari, Chhaya, Sadam Satya Narayana Raja Yadav, Thota Shiv Ram Prasad, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, P Murugesan, Dinesh Satypal Sehgal, Ashwani Garg, and Sanjeev Malhotra. Representing the State were Additional Advocate General RK Raizada, along with advocates Ankit Goel, Antriksh Singh, Sahil Patel, and Nikhil Sharma.
The Supreme Court's firm stance underscores the importance of adhering to judicial timelines and the need for accountability within the administrative system. As the Court continues to push for systemic corrections, it remains to be seen how the State of UP will respond to these directives. The outcome of the August 19 video conference appearance by the Principal Secretary will be a significant step in addressing these systemic delays and ensuring justice for those awaiting premature release.
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the need for efficiency and adherence to judicial orders within the legal system, reinforcing the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
Post a Comment