The Supreme Court warned Uttar Pradesh’s Principal Secretary for providing contradictory statements about the delay in a convict’s remission plea. Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih criticized the conflicting explanations in his affidavit.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India issued a stern warning to the Principal Secretary of Uttar Pradesh’s Prison Administration and Reforms Department for submitting contradictory statements regarding the delay in processing a convict’s remission plea. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih, expressed their dissatisfaction over the conflicting explanations provided by the secretary in his affidavit, which contradicted his earlier stance.
The controversy arose when the Principal Secretary, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, submitted an affidavit on August 14, 2024, which the Court found to be in stark contrast with his previous statements made on August 12, 2024. The earlier submission had claimed that the Chief Minister’s Secretariat delayed the remission process due to the Model Code of Conduct being in force. However, the affidavit presented a different narrative.
“We have reviewed the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration and Reforms Department, Uttar Pradesh. The position sworn to in the affidavit dated August 14, 2024, differs significantly from the statements made by the same officer recorded in this Court’s order dated August 12, 2024. Some statements in the affidavit, including those in clause (g) of paragraph 5, appear to be false.”
– the Court observed in its order dated August 20, 2024.
The Supreme Court did not conceal its displeasure over these contradictory submissions, indicating that such actions could lead to serious consequences, including criminal contempt proceedings against the Principal Secretary. The Bench emphasized the gravity of the situation and the potential implications of submitting false statements in the court of law.
“Even today, the Principal Secretary is present in court. We are notifying him that we may consider issuing a notice of criminal contempt against him. If he wishes to submit an additional affidavit, he may do so by the next hearing date.”
– the Court stated, allowing the secretary an opportunity to clarify his position by filing another affidavit before the next hearing scheduled for August 27, 2024.
In the same order, the Supreme Court granted temporary bail to the convict, Ashok, whose remission plea had been subjected to unexplained delays. The Court’s decision to grant bail was influenced by the discrepancies in the explanations provided by the Uttar Pradesh administration, particularly the conflicting timelines and justifications presented in the affidavits.
The issue initially came to light during the August 12, 2024, hearing, where the Court had directed the Principal Secretary to file an affidavit clarifying a claim that the Chief Minister’s Secretariat had refused to process Ashok’s remission file due to the Model Code of Conduct. During this hearing, Justice Oka expressed his frustration, stating-
“This is blatant. He is disregarding the fundamental rights of convicts.”
The Court had instructed the Principal Secretary to provide a clear and truthful account of whether the Chief Minister’s Secretariat had indeed refused to accept the file. However, the affidavit subsequently filed by the Principal Secretary failed to align with these instructions.
Upon reviewing the affidavit, the Court noted several inconsistencies and delays in the processing of the remission file. Despite the Court’s order on May 13, 2024, to expedite the processing within a month, the file reportedly remained unmoved until June 6, 2024, after the Model Code of Conduct had ended. Furthermore, the affidavit implied that the file had been delivered to the Governor by the appropriate Minister without mentioning that it was sent to the Chief Minister’s office only on August 5, 2024.
The Court also highlighted that the Chief Minister signed the file on the same day it was received, August 5, 2024, and the Governor followed suit on August 13, 2024. These events directly contradicted the Principal Secretary’s earlier claim that the file’s processing was delayed due to the Model Code of Conduct.
“A clear violation of the order dated May 13, 2024, is evident from the file.”
-the Court remarked, indicating the severity of the situation and the apparent disregard for the Court’s directives.
- Senior Advocate Purvish Jitender Malkan, along with a team of advocates including CK Rai, Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Manish Kumar, Aqsa, Mohan Lal, Anuradha Roy, and Vinay Kumar Gupta, represented the convict, Ashok.
- On the other side, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the Centre, while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Sharan Thakur, Senior AAGs Garima Prasad and Sakshi Kakkar, and advocate Anchit Singla appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
