Principal Secretary Warned of Criminal Contempt for Contradictory Statements in Remission Case
The Supreme Court recently criticized the Principal Secretary of Uttar Pradesh’s Prison Administration and Reforms Department for making contradictory and false statements while justifying the delay in processing a convict’s remission plea. In the case *Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another*, the Court highlighted the inconsistencies in the statements submitted by the officer, Rajesh Kumar Singh, and warned him of potential criminal contempt charges.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih pointed out that the affidavit submitted on August 14, 2024, conflicted with the officer’s earlier assertions made on August 12. Initially, the officer had blamed the delay on the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, citing that the file was stalled due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. However, his affidavit provided a different narrative, stating that the delay had other causes.
“We have perused the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, Prison Administration and Reforms Department, State of Uttar Pradesh. The stand taken on oath in the affidavit is completely different from the statements made by the same officer in the Court’s order dated August 12, 2024,” the Bench remarked.
The Court expressed its disapproval over the officer’s conflicting submissions and issued a stern warning, stating that the official might face criminal contempt proceedings. However, the Bench allowed the officer to file a further affidavit to clarify his position. Rajesh Kumar Singh was instructed to be personally present at the next hearing, scheduled for August 27.
The convict, Ashok, was granted temporary bail due to the prolonged delay in processing his remission application. The case initially came to the Court’s attention after Ashok’s remission file had been inexplicably delayed, despite earlier instructions from the Court to process it within a month.
During the hearing on August 12, Justice Oka had expressed frustration over the delay, calling it a violation of the convict’s fundamental rights. The Principal Secretary had been directed to clarify the situation in an affidavit, especially concerning the claim that the Chief Minister’s Secretariat refused the file due to the Model Code of Conduct.
The Supreme Court noted further discrepancies upon reviewing the affidavit. It observed that the remission file remained inactive for weeks even after the Court’s instructions in May. Contrary to the Secretary’s earlier claims, the file was moved to the Chief Minister’s office only on August 5, with both the Chief Minister and Governor acting on it in quick succession. The Court deemed this a clear violation of its May 13 order, pointing out that the Secretary’s defense using the Model Code of Conduct was a falsehood.
In addition to this case, the Uttar Pradesh authorities have faced similar criticism from the Court over delays in processing remission applications in another case involving a convict named Kuldeep. In that case as well, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s failure to comply with court-mandated timelines.
Senior Advocate Purvish Jitender Malkan, along with several other lawyers, represented Ashok in the proceedings. Meanwhile, the State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and other senior state counsels.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
