The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to a former Uttar Pradesh principal secretary for providing false statements. The case revolves around delays in processing remission applications in the state’s prisons. The Court sternly remarked that the actions of the former official have jeopardized another person’s liberty.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a notice asking why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against a former prisons official from Uttar Pradesh for providing false statements while attempting to justify delays in processing a prisoner’s remission file.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih previously granted the official, Rajesh Kumar Singh, who served as the Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reforms Department, another chance to address the inconsistencies found in his explanations.
The official’s fresh affidavit failed to impress the Supreme Court.
Addressing the officer, Justice Abhay S Oka remarked,
“We thought this officer would come clean, but for the last three occasions, he has only spoken lies. You have not come clean; now face the music. Absolute defiance of the court’s order. Because of your acts, somebody else’s liberty is at stake,”
The Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel informed the Court that the officer had been removed from his position and was now facing disciplinary proceedings. However, the Court emphasized that this alone did not excuse the officer’s apparent misconduct, noting the situation reflected a “very sorry state of affairs.”
The Court’s order further stated,
“Prima facie it appears to us that the stand taken by him in affidavits is completely contradictory to the stand taken by him when he appeared via VC. Therefore, prima facie it appears that he has filed a false affidavit. So, issue notice to the officer as to why criminal contempt must not be initiated against him and why the offence of perjury should not be pursued.”
The Supreme Court hearing a plea from a convict seeking remission (early release) of his prison sentence. The Court recently granted the convict temporary bail after noting substantial delays by State authorities in processing his remission file.
The Court previously asked for an explanation regarding the delays, despite setting a one-month deadline for processing the file on May 13. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the prisons official involved, initially attributed the delay to slow responses from the State Secretariat and the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). However, a later affidavit filed by Singh, along with the timeline provided, showed that these were not the actual reasons for the delay.
The Court expressed serious concerns over these inconsistencies during hearings on August 20 and August 28. In today’s session, the Court reiterated that the MCC should not have hindered the decision-making process for the convict’s remission. It also criticized the State’s efforts to shift responsibility to the advocate on record representing Uttar Pradesh for the delay in processing the file.
The Supreme Court observed,
“We see that the entire blame is now being shifted to the AOR of the State of UP, claiming he had not communicated the order to the State Department in time, causing the delay. We make it clear that the State’s current explanation is an afterthought. It was their duty to confirm with the AOR what had transpired. It is unfortunate that the blame is now being shifted to the AOR representing the state before us.”
The Bench further noted that the jail superintendent fully aware of the court proceedings.
“His claim that he was unaware of any order passed by this Court is completely false. We see that the file was intentionally kept pending until the code of conduct ended.”
The Court then instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to thoroughly examine the matter and file an affidavit explaining the actions of the State officials involved. This affidavit to be submitted by September 24, with the case set to continue on September 27.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad represented the State of Uttar Pradesh during the hearing.