RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

The Court directed that all cases in the present batch be considered in terms of the Standing Policy dated 1 August 2018 as amended, that the age-60 eligibility restriction introduced on 28 July 2021 is to be treated as deleted by the amendment of 27 May 2022 (and hence cannot be a ground to reject cases), that convicts must be afforded the benefit of any more liberal subsequent amendments, and that the implementation process must be objective, transparent and actively administered to give effect to eligibility under the policy consistent with Articles 14 and 21.

Parties
Petitioner: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment/decided (order Delivered 6 September 2022)
Outcome
Petitions disposed of.
Legal Topics
Remission, Premature Release, Prison Policy, Article 14 (equality), Article 21 (life and Personal Liberty), Administrative Procedure and Transparency
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prison Law/administration Remission Premature Release Prison Policy Article 14 (equality) Article 21 (life and Personal Liberty) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashidul Jafar @ Chota

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment/decided (order Delivered 6 September 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment imposing minimum age of 60 for premature release is permissible and applicable to pending cases
  2. 2 Whether an application for premature release must be considered by reference to the policy in force on the date of conviction or subsequent amendments
  3. 3 Whether the procedure for considering premature release applications violates Articles 14 and 21 if implemented in an arbitrary or non-transparent manner

Ratio Decidendi

The Court directed that all cases in the present batch be considered in terms of the Standing Policy dated 1 August 2018 as amended, that the age-60 eligibility restriction introduced on 28 July 2021 is to be treated as deleted by the amendment of 27 May 2022 (and hence cannot be a ground to reject cases), that convicts must be afforded the benefit of any more liberal subsequent amendments, and that the implementation process must be objective, transparent and actively administered to give effect to eligibility under the policy consistent with Articles 14 and 21.

Court Disposition

Petitions disposed of.

Orders

  • All cases for premature release in the present batch to be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended; the restriction introduced by the 28 July 2021 policy that a life convict must attain age 60 is deleted and shall not be a ground to reject applications
  • If any convict is entitled to more liberal benefits by any amendments subsequent to 1 August 2018, such benefits shall be granted (beneficial reading of the policy)