The Supreme Court has reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for delaying decisions on applications for early release in sentences. Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih voiced their disagreement with the government’s arguments and stated that their guidelines and the timeframe for deciding petitions were not being adhered to. The bench firmly rejected the government's arguments, questioning why UP was not complying with their orders. The court indicated that they would not let the matter rest easily. Questions were also raised about the operations of the Chief Minister's office.
In fact, the Supreme Court had set a mandatory timeframe for handling applications for relief and leniency in sentences. Because this wasn't being followed, the court questioned how the UP government could take 2-4 months even after their orders were passed.
'Name the Officials Who Rejected the File'
The lawyer for the UP government argued that the competent authority was on leave in this matter and was expected to return today. The Supreme Court expressed its irritation and ordered a sworn affidavit stating that the Chief Minister's Secretariat did not accept the file. It should also include the names of officials who rejected the file. The Chief Minister's top officials should supervise such misconduct, given their orders.
'Officials Tampering with Convicts' Fundamental Rights'
Justice Oka declared this as a shameless act, with officials tampering with the fundamental rights of the convicts. The court ordered that the file related to this entire matter was sent to the UP government only after the conclusion of the code of conduct. Advocate Rakesh Kumar was directed to present the names of responsible officers who refused to accept the file.
Next Hearing on August 20
Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad represented the UP government. The bench mandated that before any decision on contempt of court, the government must file an affidavit by August 14 with necessary correspondence and notes from the Chief Minister’s office. The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for August 20.
