Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to pre-mature release.  
• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.    

Facts  

• On 1^st August 2018, the Government of UP issued a policy governing pre-mature release of convicts annually on Republic Day with the approval of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The case involves 512 convicts serving life sentences in Uttar Pradesh who are seeking premature release. 
• On 28^th July 2021, the government amended the policy to add a new condition that prisoners could only be considered for premature release after reaching 60 years of age. 
• This 2021 amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court on several grounds:  
  • Prisoners argued that premature release should be considered based on the policy in effect at the time of their conviction 
  • The age requirement was seen as violating the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution

Issue Involved  

• Whether the 2021 Amendment to the policy of Government violating the COI? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court highlighted several key principles in its judgment:  
  • Premature release policies must be implemented objectively and transparently 
  • Many life convicts lack resources and face barriers to accessing legal remedies 
  • The state has a responsibility to proactively consider eligible prisoners for release 
• The Supreme Court issued several crucial directions: 
  • Cases should be considered under the original 1 August 2018 policy 
  • More liberal policy amendments can be applied beneficially 
  • Prisoners do not need to submit applications for premature release 
  • District Legal Services Authorities must help identify and process eligible cases 
  • Premature release applications must be processed expeditiously 
  • Priority should be given to prisoners over 70 or with terminal illnesses 
• The Court emphasized that liberty should not depend on an individual's resources, and the promise of constitutional equality must be fulfilled 

Conclusion 

• This case lays down the importance of remission and also lays down several guidelines related to pre-mature release.