Supreme Court Pulls Up UP Prison Administration Over Delay in Releasing Undertrial: Liberty Cannot Be Denied on Technical Grounds

Case Background: Delay in Release Despite Supreme Court Bail Order

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities for delaying the release of an undertrial Muslim accused, who had been granted bail under an anti-conversion case, but continued to remain in custody for almost one month after the order.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan described the situation as “very sad” and “unfortunate”, observing that a citizen’s liberty was curtailed solely on account of a trivial technical objection raised by jail authorities.

The Court held that even though all relevant details — identity of the accused, case number, offences, and police station — were clearly mentioned, the accused was not released merely because the order did not mention a sub-clause of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.


Facts of the Case: Bail, Release Order, and Continued Detention

The accused was facing trial under:

  • Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping)

  • Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

The Supreme Court granted bail on 29 April 2025, directing that he be released during trial on conditions fixed by the trial court.

Following this, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, issued a release order on 27 May 2025. However, the jail authorities refused to execute the order on the ground that it did not explicitly mention “Section 5(1)” of the Act and instead filed a correction application, leaving the accused in custody.

The Supreme Court termed this approach a “travesty of justice”.


Importance of FASTER System and Section 92A of UP Jail Manual, 2022

The Supreme Court invoked Section 92A of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022, which recognises the Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Record (FASTER) system.

Under Section 92A:

  • All orders transmitted through the FASTER portal are deemed e-authenticated

  • Jail authorities are mandatorily required to execute release orders immediately

  • No procedural or clerical objections should delay compliance

The Court noted that had the authorities followed Section 92A properly, the illegal detention could have been avoided.

The Director General of Prisons was directed to ensure greater vigilance and institutional compliance in future.


Constitutional Principle: Article 21 and Protection of Personal Liberty

The Court emphasised that:

  • Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty

  • Liberty cannot be sacrificed due to technicalities or clerical objections

  • Procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice

The bench reiterated that personal liberty is “precious, valuable, and sacrosanct”, and must not be curtailed by bureaucratic indifference or negligence.


Judicial Precedent Relied Upon

The Supreme Court referred to a 2012 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which held that:

  • Subordinate courts must not reject bail bonds on hyper-technical grounds

  • Over-insistence on exhaustive particulars defeats the purpose of bail relief

  • Technical objections should not obstruct implementation of judicial orders

The Supreme Court extended this principle to the executive branch, observing that the same standard applies to jail officials executing court orders.


Enquiry Findings, Compensation, and Correction of Blame Attribution

The Court previously ordered an enquiry into the delay and awarded an ad hoc compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the undertrial as partial relief for wrongful deprivation of liberty.

An internal enquiry initially placed blame on an Additional District and Sessions Judge. However, the Supreme Court rejected this conclusion, stating that:

  • The enquiry report ignored Section 92A obligations

  • The judicial officer was not responsible for the delay

  • Accountability rested with the prison administration

The Court clarified that compliance failure occurred at the jail-administration level.


Supreme Court’s Observations on Duty of Jail Authorities

The Court held that:

  • Once essential details are available, release must not be obstructed

  • “Nit-picking” of court orders amounts to dereliction of duty

  • Authorities must act in a manner consistent with constitutional safeguards

The Court further stated that prison officials must give primacy to the substance of judicial orders rather than searching for clerical imperfections.


Key Legal Provisions Involved

Relevant statutory and constitutional provisions include:

  • Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty

  • Section 366, Indian Penal Code

  • Sections 3 and 5, UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

  • Section 92A, Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022 (FASTER compliance mandate)

The ruling strengthens institutional accountability in implementation of judicial orders relating to liberty.


Conclusion: Preventing Future Violations of Liberty

The Supreme Court expressed hope that no other undertrial or convict remains incarcerated due to similar technicalities and directed systemic corrective measures.

The judgment reinforces that:

  • Bail orders must be implemented without delay

  • Administrative formalism cannot override judicial authority

  • Liberty cannot be denied due to bureaucratic hesitation or hyper-technical objections

The Court concluded that its endeavour is to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future and to ensure protection of personal liberty as a constitutional priority.

Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Equality Before Law

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores