Former Principal Secrerary Prisions administration Rajesh Kumar Singh in troubled waters:
The Supreme Court has issued a notice demanding why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against a (now removed) prisons official in Uttar Pradesh for making false statements in his attempts to explain delays in processing a prisoner’s remission file.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih had earlier granted the official, Rajesh Kumar Singh – who had been serving as the Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reforms Department – one more opportunity to explain contradictions noticed in his explanations.
However, the fresh affidavit filed by the official also left the Court unimpressed.
“We thought this officer will come clean but during last three occasions, he has only spoken lies … You have not come clean, now face the music. Absolute defiance of court’s order … Because of your acts, somebody else’s liberty is at stake,” Justice Oka remarked, while addressing the officer today.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel informed the Court that the official has since been removed and is facing disciplinary proceedings.
The Court was hearing a convict’s plea for the remission (early release from prison) of his prison sentence.
The Court recently ordered the convict’s release on temporary bail, after taking note of significant delays by the State authorities in processing his remission file.
The Court had also demanded an explanation as to why the processing of the convict’s remission file was taking so long, despite one month deadline set by the top court on May 13 this year.
The concerned prisons official (Rajesh Kumar Singh) had initially cited a slow response by the State Secretariat and a Model Code of Conduct (MCC) as reasons for the delay.
However, an affidavit filed later on the Court’s orders by Singh and the timeline of events stated in it revealed that this was not the reason for the delay.
The Court had taken a serious view of these contradictions on August 20 and on August 28.
In the last hearing, the Court further recounted that it had already made it clear that the MCC should not have come in the way of deciding on the convict’s remission file.
The Court also criticised attempts by the State to shift blame for the fiasco to the advocate on record representing the State of Uttar Pradesh.
“We see that the entire blame is now being shifted to AOR of State of UP that he had not communicated the order to the State Department within time and that is why delay has happened. We make it clear that whatever the state is now stating is an afterthought … It was their duty to ascertain from AOR to find out what transpired. Therefore it is now unfortunate that they have shifted the blame to AOR who is representing the state before us,” the Court said.
The Bench added that the concerned jail superintendent was aware of the court proceedings.
“His argument that he was not aware of any order passed by this court is completely false. We see that the file was kept pending till the code of conduct is over,” it said.
The Court proceeded to direct the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to look into the matter carefully and file an affidavit explaining the acts of State officials.
This affidavit is to be filed by September 24. The matter will be heard next on September 27.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court, however, made it clear that such action was not enough to absolve the officer of his apparent misconduct. The Court added that the entire episode reflected a “very sorry state of affairs.”
“Prima facie it appears to us that the stand taken by him in affidavits is completely contradictory to the stand taken by him when he appeared via VC. Therefore prima facie it appears that he has filed false affidavit. So, issue notice to the officer as to why criminal contempt must not be initiated against him and why offence of perjury should not be initiated,” the Court’s order said.
