Mata Prasad vs The State of U.P. & Anr.
Background
Mata Prasad was convicted along with his father and brother for murder-related offences in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2004; his appeal against conviction has remained pending in the Allahabad High Court for 17 years. After completing 14 years in prison, he applied for premature release under a 1938 UP law, which was rejected in 2017. He then sought release under a 2018 Uttar Pradesh government policy for premature release of long-serving prisoners, but that too was rejected in 2019, even though the State released around 1,000 similarly-placed prisoners under the same policy between 2018 and 2021. Meanwhile, the policy was amended in 2021 to require prisoners to be at least 60 years old: a bar Mata Prasad did not meet.
Decision Breakdown
The State conceded that under the 2018 policy (the one applicable at the time of Mata Prasad's conviction), his case would qualify, and that under Supreme Court precedent the policy in force at the time of conviction (not a later, stricter one) governs eligibility for remission. The Court expressed serious doubt about the fairness of the new 2021 rule requiring a minimum age of 60, noting it would effectively force even a 20-year-old convict to serve 40 years before being considered, and directed the State Government to reconsider that clause within four months. It also directed the State to reconsider Mata Prasad's own case for remission within three months, and: given that he had already served about 22.5 years without remission (nearly 28 years counting remission): granted him bail in the interim pending those decisions.
Lesson Learnt
For prisoners seeking premature release or remission, the government policy that applied at the time of their original conviction is the one that governs their eligibility, not a stricter policy introduced years later; and courts will step in with interim relief like bail where State inaction causes prolonged, unfair incarceration.