Mata Prasad v. The State of U.P.
In short. The case involves Mata Prasad, the petitioner, who sought premature release from prison under a policy established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was convicted of serious offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2004. Despite serving over 14 years and meeting the eligibility criteria for premature release as per the 2018 policy, his requests were denied. The court admitted the writ petition and acknowledged the petitioner’s eligibility under the earlier policy, while expressing skepticism about a subsequent amendment requiring a minimum age of 60 for consideration of release.
Facts
Mata Prasad, along with his family members, was convicted in 2004 for offenses under Sections 302, 307, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an appeal against his conviction, which has been pending for 17 years. After serving 14 years, he applied for premature release under the U.P. Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1938, but his application was rejected in 2017. The petitioner argued that he met the criteria set forth in a government order dated August 1, 2018, which allowed for the premature release of certain prisoners. However, his applications for release were denied in 2019 and again in 2021, despite the government releasing numerous prisoners under the same policy during that period.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner argued that he fulfilled all the conditions for premature release as outlined in the 2018 policy, which included serving 16 years of actual imprisonment. He highlighted the inconsistency in the government's actions, noting that many prisoners were released under the same policy while his application was repeatedly denied without adequate justification. The court recognized the validity of the petitioner’s claims regarding his eligibility under the 2018 policy.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent, represented by the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the policy had been amended in 2021, which introduced a minimum age requirement of 60 years for consideration of premature release. The respondent acknowledged that the petitioner met the criteria of the 2018 policy but argued that the 2021 amendment should apply. However, the respondent also conceded that a recent Supreme Court judgment indicated that the policy in effect at the time of conviction should govern the consideration for premature release.
Precedents considered
The court referenced the case of (2021) 9 SCC 292, which established that the policy in place at the time of conviction should be applied when considering a prisoner’s eligibility for premature release. This precedent was crucial in supporting the petitioner’s argument that the 2018 policy should govern his case, despite the subsequent amendment.
Legal principles
The court considered the legal principles surrounding premature release, particularly the criteria established in the 2018 policy and the implications of the 2021 amendment. The principle that the law in effect at the time of conviction should apply was a significant factor in the court's reasoning.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court expressed doubt regarding the validity of the 2021 policy's age requirement, suggesting that it could unjustly extend the imprisonment of younger offenders. The court's reasoning emphasized the importance of adhering to the policy that was in place at the time of the petitioner’s conviction, thereby supporting the petitioner’s claim for premature release.
Outcome
The court admitted the writ petition and indicated that the petitioner’s case should be considered under the 2018 policy. The court did not issue a final order for release but acknowledged the petitioner’s eligibility and the need for the state to reconsider his application based on the applicable policy.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the legal framework in place at the time of conviction when considering premature release applications. It highlights potential issues with amendments to policies that may disproportionately affect certain categories of prisoners, particularly younger offenders. The case sets a precedent for future considerations of premature release, emphasizing the need for consistency and fairness in the application of such policies.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.