On Tuesday(on 27th August), the Supreme Court of India reprimanded UP’s Principal Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh for submitting misleading affidavits, declaring that dishonesty from IAS officers will not be tolerated. Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih criticized Singh’s false affidavit, despite Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad’s defense of a misunderstanding.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[Delay in Plea for Remission] "Either he is guilty or under pressure to lie": Supreme Court Grills Principal Secretary of UP Prisons for Submitting ‘False’ Affidavit](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-358.png?resize=550%2C309&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(27th August), The Supreme Court of India strongly reprimanded a senior official of the Uttar Pradesh government for filing false affidavits in a case involving the remission of a convict. The apex court made it clear that it would not tolerate an IAS officer “lying” on the face of the court and changing stands according to convenience. This stern warning was directed at Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reforms Department, for submitting contradictory affidavits, leading to serious questions about the integrity of the state’s administration.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed its deep dissatisfaction with Singh’s actions. The controversy arose when Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, claimed that Singh had misunderstood an earlier court order.
The bench, however, did not accept this explanation, stating-
“We will not tolerate an IAS officer lying to this court or altering their statements for convenience.”
The issue began when Singh filed an affidavit on August 14, 2023, which the court found to be inconsistent with his earlier statements recorded in an order dated August 12.
The bench noted that-
“The position sworn to in the affidavit affirmed by Singh on August 14 is entirely inconsistent with the solemn statements he made, which were recorded in this court’s order of August 12.”
The bench further observed-
“Indeed, some statements in the affidavit, including those in clause (g) of paragraph 5, appear to be false.”
This was not the first time Singh’s statements had come under scrutiny. On August 12, Singh had claimed that the delay in processing the remission file of a convict was due to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) imposed in the state during the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections. He suggested that it was the Chief Minister’s office that delayed the file processing.
The Supreme Court, however, did not buy Singh’s justification. It emphasized that Singh, being a senior IAS officer, should have understood the court’s directives clearly.
ALSO READ: BREAKING|| SC Slams Uttarakhand, says State’s Approach in Controlling Forest Fires Lackadaisical
The bench sternly told Singh-
“You are not an uneducated person who could not understand what the court said; you are a senior officer of the state government.”
The court’s dissatisfaction with Singh’s conduct was palpable. The bench noted that the state government should take strict action against officers who provide misleading information to the court.
“Some officers must be jailed, or this conduct will persist. We will not spare him, and the state must take action against him.”
– the bench asserted.
Singh, in an attempt to defend himself, said that he had inadvertently stated that the Chief Minister’s secretariat did not accept the remission files due to the Model Code of Conduct. The bench, however, was unconvinced and took Singh’s affidavit on record, indicating that it would delve deeper into the matter and pass an order on September 9.
The situation became more complicated when Singh filed another affidavit on August 20, 2023. This new affidavit contradicted his previous statements, creating further confusion. The bench had already granted temporary bail to the convict, whose remission plea was the subject of the controversy, and directed Singh to appear before the court on August 27. The bench pointed out that the affidavit filed on August 20 was in stark contrast to Singh’s August 12 submission, where he had attributed the delay to the Model Code of Conduct.
The bench was clear in its expectations from the state administration. It had, on May 13, directed the state government to consider the case of the convict, Ashok, for the grant of permanent remission, while observing that the Model Code of Conduct did not impede the authorities. Despite this clear direction, the Uttar Pradesh government failed to process the remission file within the specified timeframe, leading to the current legal tussle.
The court also addressed a broader concern regarding the Uttar Pradesh government’s compliance with its orders.
The bench remarked-
“We have repeatedly observed that orders from this court directing the consideration of premature release are not being implemented within the deadlines set by the court.”
The judges were visibly frustrated with the repeated delays and non-compliance by state officials.
“We aim to correct this system.”
-they stated, emphasizing that the state’s conduct needed rectification.
The Supreme Court had earlier warned of contempt action against officers in the office of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. It had sought the names of those officials who had refused to process remission pleas due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. The court’s concern was that the delay in processing remission pleas was causing undue hardship to convicts seeking early release.
The case has far-reaching implications for the administration of justice in Uttar Pradesh. The court’s warning of potential criminal contempt proceedings against Singh and its insistence on accountability underscores the seriousness of the issue. The court was clear that it would not tolerate administrative officers changing their stance due to external pressures, especially from political quarters.
Justice Oka remarked-
“He (the Principal Secretary) is not illiterate but is either pressured to take a contrary stance or is guilty of lying in the affidavit. We will pursue this to its logical conclusion and will not spare him if the government fails to act. He must come clean. You cannot selectively apply remission. We will now delve into the truth of the matter.”
The court granted Singh another opportunity to file a fresh affidavit to explain the situation, with a hearing scheduled for September 9. The case, involving the convict Ashok, has brought to light the bureaucratic and administrative challenges in processing remission files in a timely manner. The delay, which the court has termed as unjustified and contradictory, has resulted in a temporary bail for Ashok, pending a final decision on his remission plea.
