<p>The Supreme Court has told the Uttar Pradesh government to revisit its August 2021 policy, which prescribed 60 years as the minimum age to apply for remission by life term convicts, expressing "great doubt" on its validity.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh gave four months time to the state government "to do the needful", saying the policy "prima-facie does not seems to be sustainable".</p>.<p>"We would like to express a great doubt on the validity of this clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years which would imply that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered," the bench said. </p>.<p>"We call upon the state government to re-examine this part of the policy," the bench added.</p>.<p>The Governor exercises power of remission under Article 161 of the Constitution for premature release of convicts, in terms of the policy framed by the state government.</p>.<p>The top court here was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mata Prasad, who contended he has not been released from jail, despite his request having been approved on January 26, 2020 after having served more than 17 years of life term awarded in 2004 in an FIR lodged with Gosaiganj police station in Our district.</p>.<p>The state government, for its part, submitted that the policy for pre-mature release stood amended on July 28, 2021. The significant change as applicable in the case of the petitioner is that all such convicts are required to be considered “who have completed age of 60 years” and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission.</p>.<p>It admitted that as per the previous policy of 2018, the case of the petitioner would be covered though in terms of the 2021 policy, he is not of the requisite age of 60 years.</p>.<p>The state government also said the petitioner, whose appeal against the conviction and sentence has been pending before the Allahabad High Court, could have applied for suspension of sentence.</p>.<p>The top court, however, directed the competent authority to decide the plea by the petitioner within a period of three months, saying "It cannot be said that the state government is precluded from examining the case of the petitioner for remission if an appeal is pending before the High Court."</p>.<p>The bench also rejected a contention by the state government that the 2021 policy was under challenge before the top court. It also allowed the petitioner bail, after noting he has already served about more than 22 years without remission and almost 28 years with remission.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has told the Uttar Pradesh government to revisit its August 2021 policy, which prescribed 60 years as the minimum age to apply for remission by life term convicts, expressing "great doubt" on its validity.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh gave four months time to the state government "to do the needful", saying the policy "prima-facie does not seems to be sustainable".</p>.<p>"We would like to express a great doubt on the validity of this clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years which would imply that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered," the bench said. </p>.<p>"We call upon the state government to re-examine this part of the policy," the bench added.</p>.<p>The Governor exercises power of remission under Article 161 of the Constitution for premature release of convicts, in terms of the policy framed by the state government.</p>.<p>The top court here was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mata Prasad, who contended he has not been released from jail, despite his request having been approved on January 26, 2020 after having served more than 17 years of life term awarded in 2004 in an FIR lodged with Gosaiganj police station in Our district.</p>.<p>The state government, for its part, submitted that the policy for pre-mature release stood amended on July 28, 2021. The significant change as applicable in the case of the petitioner is that all such convicts are required to be considered “who have completed age of 60 years” and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission.</p>.<p>It admitted that as per the previous policy of 2018, the case of the petitioner would be covered though in terms of the 2021 policy, he is not of the requisite age of 60 years.</p>.<p>The state government also said the petitioner, whose appeal against the conviction and sentence has been pending before the Allahabad High Court, could have applied for suspension of sentence.</p>.<p>The top court, however, directed the competent authority to decide the plea by the petitioner within a period of three months, saying "It cannot be said that the state government is precluded from examining the case of the petitioner for remission if an appeal is pending before the High Court."</p>.<p>The bench also rejected a contention by the state government that the 2021 policy was under challenge before the top court. It also allowed the petitioner bail, after noting he has already served about more than 22 years without remission and almost 28 years with remission.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
