The Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha in the case observed and has directed the Director General (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit wherein showing of the steps taken in pursuance of the judgement in the case Rashidul Jafar v. State of UP, n which the court issued a slew of directions regarding remission of prisoners. In a matter, the issue arouse was pertaining to remission of around 50 convicts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the judgement of the court in Rashdil Jafar, remission is to be which is to be considered without application as soon as a convict is eligible for the same. The Court while passing of the said directions in the case, the bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud directed the Director General of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit setting out the following: 1. The Number of steps which are taken in pursuance of the judgment in the case Rashidul Jafar v. State of UP and the institutional arrangements which are to be put in place; 2. How many convicts are being eligible for premature release district wise in the State of UP? 3. How many cases have been considered for premature release since the judgment in the case of Rashidul Zafar v. State of UP? 4. How many cases are being pending for consideration for premature release since the judgment of Rashidul Zafar v. State of UP? 5. The time period by when such cases needs to be considered. In the matter, a notice has also been issued by the court to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority in the matter. For the said context, the Apex Court in the case Rashidul Jafar v. State of UP observed and has stated that the District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination with the jail authorities for ensuring that all eligible cases of prisoners who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the applicable policies would be duly considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise being eligible to be considered and shall be excluded from the said consideration. Further, it has also been directed by the court that the applications for premature release shall be considered expeditiously. Adding to it, the court stated that those cases which have already been processed and in respect of which reports have been submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated to the convict no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Therefore, the cases of the eligible life convicts who are (i) who being above the age of seventy years; or (ii) suffering from terminal ailments which shall be taken up on priority and would be disposed of within a period of two months.
