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
Post a Comment