The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, warned that contempt proceedings might be initiated against the board’s chairperson (the Home Minister) and its members if they continue to disregard court orders.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday(11th Nov) reprimanded the Sentence Review Board of the Union Territory of Puducherry for failing to adhere to its previous directive regarding the decision on a prisoner’s request for remission (early release).
The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, warned that contempt proceedings might be initiated against the board’s chairperson (the Home Minister) and its members if they continue to disregard court orders.
Justice Oka, visibly frustrated, remarked, “If an order of this Court is ignored in this manner, we will issue a contempt notice to those responsible, regardless of their position, including the State Home Minister.”
BRIEF FACTS
The case before the Court involved petitions from two prisoners who had been incarcerated for over 20 years following their convictions in a murder case. They had been sentenced to life imprisonment and were also convicted for attempting to kill multiple police officers using an explosive device.
On January 25, the Supreme Court had granted the remission plea of a co-convict, Satish, overturning the sentence review board’s prior refusal to approve his early release. On August 27, the Court had directed the board to reconsider the petitioners’ request for premature release in accordance with its decision in the Satish case.
However, when the matter was reviewed on Monday, the Court found that the review board had failed to take any action on the matter. The Court took this lapse seriously and instructed the Inspector General of Prisons (who also serves as the review board’s member-secretary) to file an affidavit explaining the board’s conduct.
The Court noted that the board had not considered its earlier order in the case of the co-convict and stated that this oversight constituted a violation of the Court’s directive. It ordered the Inspector General of Prisons to submit an affidavit regarding the board’s actions.
In light of the lengthy imprisonment, the Court also granted interim bail to one of the petitioners, while scheduling the case for further hearing on January 10. Additionally, the Court reiterated its instruction to the review board to decide on the petitioners’ plea for premature release by that date.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
