Supreme Court Directs Jail Superintendents to Pay Personal Attention to Female Prisoners who Might be Eligible for Release Benefits under Section 479 of the BNSS

In a recent order, the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti directed the Jail Superintendents to pay personal attention to female prisoners who might be eligible for release benefits under Section 479 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). The order reads, “Although the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS are gender neutral, it is also necessary for this Court to say that special efforts should be made to identify women prisoners who are entitled to release under the beneficial provision. The concerned Jail Superintendents where the women prisoners are lodged should therefore pay personal attention to the female prisoners, who might have become eligible for the release benefits, under Section 479 of the BNSS.” It also directed that the concerned authorities “must also take care to avoid confusion for an undertrial, who might initially be charged with a heinous crime entailing life imprisonment or the death penalty but against whom charges have been framed subsequently, for a lesser offence. This is being flagged as there could be cases of prisoners whose jail records may not have been updated with charges being framed for lesser crimes.”

The order was passed in a writ petition concerning the overcrowding of Indian prisons. Earlier on August 08, 2024, an order was passed stating “The beneficial provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them prior to 01.07.2024 i.e., the date when the new legislation has come into effect.” The order further stated that the deserving undertrials must be identified by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district, with appropriate coordination with the Jail Superintendents of all the Jails in the country. During the proceedings, a note was produced by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar appearing for NALSA. The note indicated that responses have been received from around 27 States and Union Territories. “However, no response has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tripura and the Union Territory of Goa.” It added, “Despite the fact that the last order passed by this Court (on 22.10.2024) was communicated to the Chief Secretaries of all the State and Union Territories, the non-filing of response by the concerned States shows that perhaps the concerned States/UTs are lax in ensuring that the benefits of Section 479 of the BNSS are availed by the deserving category of undertrials.”

Further, the SC bench noted that the reports submitted by states to the amicus curiae were in different formats. It added, “This does not lend clarity and makes it difficult to appreciate why release orders have not been obtained despite identifying the deserving undertrial and sending the concerned person’s case to the Court.” The bench said that the report furnished by the West Bengal Legal Services Authority and U.P. Legal Services Authority provides clear and structured data. Therefore, the bench directed that the report to be furnished by the States/UTs, which are yet to respond pursuant to the top Court’s last order should follow an appropriate format. The details include the Name of Prisoner/Name of Father/Husband (Including Challani Police Station and District), Crime No. and Sections (including challani Police Station and District), Date of Jail Admission, Maxim period of Sentence u/s imposed on the prisoner, Total period in prison (in all prisons in case of transfer), Date when application was sent to the Hon’ble Court (including name), The date of referral of the case from the prison to The Hon’ble DLSA, Date of referral of case from the Hon’ble DLSA to the Hon’ble Court (including name), Date of release from the prison, The reason of not allowing the bail to the prisoner by the Hon’ble Court, and Remarks (if any). 

Lastly, the bench ordered, “Those States/UTs which have not responded pursuant to this Court’s last order dated 22.10.2024 should urgently file their response, within two weeks.” The matter was listed for further hearing on December 10, 2024.