Supreme Court of India
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 932
- Decided
- 6 September 2022
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The age‑60 restriction is invalid; premature release must be considered under the 1 August 2018 policy as subsequently amended, applying any more liberal provisions, and the state must process applications transparently and within prescribed time‑frames.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard petitions filed by 512 convicts serving life sentences in Uttar Pradesh seeking premature release. The state had issued a Standing Policy on premature release on 1 August 2018, which was amended on 28 July 2021 to impose a condition that a life‑convict could be considered for release only after attaining the age of sixty, and later amended on 27 May 2022 to delete that age restriction. The petitioners argued that the age‑60 condition violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that release should be governed by the law as it stood at the time of their conviction. The Court held that the age‑60 restriction must be removed, that premature release must be considered under the 2018 policy as subsequently amended, and that any more liberal provisions in later amendments should apply. It directed the Uttar Pradesh District Legal Services Authorities to ensure an objective, transparent, and time‑bound process for considering all eligible convicts, and disposed of the petitions.
Issues considered
- The validity of the 28 July 2021 amendment imposing an age‑60 restriction on premature release of life‑convicts.
- Whether the age‑60 restriction violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
- Which version of the premature release policy should govern the consideration of applications filed by convicts sentenced before the amendment.
- What procedural safeguards are required to ensure a fair and transparent premature release process.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 161, s. Article 21, s. Article 32
Subjects
premature releaselife imprisonmentconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 21Uttar Pradeshpolicy amendmentprison lawright to lifeequalitylegal aid
Judgment
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 475 475
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No 336 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2022 B
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Remission: Pre-mature release – Remission plea of five
hundred and twelve convicts undergoing a sentence of imprisonment C
for life in the State of UP – In 2021, amendment brought to the
Standing Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts of
2018 – Earlier policy of the year 2018 modified so as to provide
that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life would not be
released until the age of sixty years is attained – Challenge to, on
the ground that the plea for premature release must be considered D
on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of conviction and that
a subsequent policy which operates to restrict the ambit of a policy
prevailing on the date of conviction must not be allowed to obstruct
the plea for release; and that the requirement that a convict cannot
be considered for premature release before the age of sixty would E
violate the right to life u/Art.21 by subjecting a convict to long
years of incarceration – Held: Implementation of the said policy
for premature release is to be carried out in an objective and
transparent manner as otherwise it would impinge on the
constitutional guarantees u/Art. 14 and 21 – Many of these life
convicts who have suffered long years of incarceration have few F
or no resources – Lack of literacy, education and social support
structures impede their right to access legal remedies – Once the
State has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature
release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to
all eligible convicts – Constitutional guarantees against arbitrary G
treatment and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must
not be foreclosed by an unfair process of considering applications
for premature release in terms of the policy – In view thereof, issuance
of directions to UP Government on premature release – Instant cases
for premature release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life
H
475
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A to be considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018 –
Restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release
until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced by the
policy of 28 July 2021 is deleted, thus, no case for premature release
to be rejected on that ground – In case, any convict is entitled to
more liberal benefits by any of the amendments brought about
B
subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the case for the grant
of premature release would be considered accordingly – All decisions
of premature release of convicts to be entitled to a beneficial reading
of the policy – Constitution of India – Art. 14 and 21.
State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216 : [2010]
C
3 SCR 716; State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bitu
(2021) 9 SCC 292; Dev Nath Singh v. State of U P;
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 528 of 2021 decided on 21
February 2022; Rajkumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
Writ Petition (Crl) No 36 of 2022 decided on 11 March
D 2022; Brij Bhushan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ
Petition (Crl) No 75 of 2022 decided on 14 March
2022 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
E [2010] 3 SCR 716 referred to Para 8
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 336 of 2019.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
F With
W.P. (CRL.) Nos.398, 376, 226 of 2021, 117, 265, 306, 360, 348
of 2020, 112, 127, 134, 143, 147, 142, 149, 153, 369, 397, 421, 446, 502,
488, 514, 497, 499, 494, 508 of 2021, 01 of 2022, 123, 7, 23, 189, 277 of
2020, 75 of 2021, 341, 336 of 2020, 15 of 2021, 417 of 2020, 61, 86, 115,
G 122 of 2021, 397 of 2020, 35 of 2021, 414, 407, 421, 373 of 2020, 67 of
2022.
Z. U. Khan, Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra,
Shikhar Kaushal, Imran Ali Khan, Ms. Nida Khan, Shubham Arora, Rohit
Amit Sthalekar, Yunus Malik, Aman Malik, Anish Maheshwari,
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 477
& ANR.
Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Samir Malik, Rishi Malhotra, Jaydeep Pati, Jetendra A
Singh, Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Ms. Kalpana Sabharwal, Ms. Priyanka
Singh, Ms. Manju Jetley, Varun Punia, K. L. Janjani, Anil Kumar Pandey,
Shailja Kant Dubey, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Aarif Ali, Rizwan Ahmad,
Pankaj Tiwari, Mujahid Ahmad, Mohit Kumar, Mushtaq Ahmed, Aman
Kumar Raizada, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Sanjay
B
Mani Tripathi, V. Elangovan, Ali Jethmalani, Pawan K. Sharma, Suraj
K. Singh, Ms. Shivani Mishra, Vibhor Jain, Santosh Krishnan, M.A.
Siddiqui, Bipin Kumar Jha, Naresh Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,
Nagendra Singh, Ashish Pendey, Ms. Akansha, Dr Sanjay Gupta,
Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Ronak Karanpuria, Uday
B. Dube, Kaustubh Dube, Advs. for the Petitioner. C
Ms. Garima Prashad, Shekhar Raj Sharma, AAGs, Pradeep Misra,
Suraj Singh, Bhuwan Chandra, Akshay Saxena, Sarvesh Singh Baghel,
Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adarsh Upadhyay, Santosh Kumar, Ajay Vikram
Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Sharjeel Ahmad, Pranjali Goel, Vishnu
Shankar Jain, Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Ms. Ruchira Goyal, Adit Jayeshbhai D
Shah, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Srishti Singh, Paras Dutta, Vishwa Pal Singh,
Shantanu Krishna, Ghanshyam Singh, Antariksh Singh, Shailesh
N. Pathak, Gaurav Dhama, Manoj Kumar, V.K. Shukla, Ankit Goel,
Ms. Shreyase Agrawal, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,
Shaurya Krishna, Ms. Radhika Dwivedi, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Yogesh
E
Pachauri, Mimansak Bhardwaj, Vishal Meghwal, Ms. Padhma Lakshmi
Zyengar, Milind Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Aditya Dhawan,
Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Bhuwan Raj, Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Raj
Kumar Bhartiya, Lavish, Sudhir Mendiratta, Ms. Devna Soni, Shivashish
Dwivedi, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Simanta Kumar, P.K. Mittal, Raj Kishor
Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. In this batch of cases which emanates from Uttar Pradesh,
five hundred and twelve convicts who are undergoing a sentence of G
imprisonment for life seek premature release.
2. On 1 August 2018, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a
policy governing premature release of convicts with the approval of the
Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. The policy is described
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A as a “Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced
to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day
(26th January)”. The policy sets out categories of convicts entitled to
premature release. Among those categories is para 2(b). The translation
provided by the Additional Advocate General is extracted below:
B “2(b). All male convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for
life whose crime is not covered by any of the sub-rule under
prohibited category defined in para-3 below and who have
undergone, including undertrial custody, sentence of 16 years
without remission and 20 years with remission.”
C 3. ‘Prohibited categories’ are spelt out in para 3 of the policy.
Clause (vi) of the prohibited categories is set out below:
“(vi) All such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for
life who have been convicted for the crimes related to
incidents of massacre (three or more than three murders).”
D
4. Para 4 of the policy provided as follows:
“4. All Senior Superintendent/Superintendent/ Superintendent
In charge shall examine the eligibility of all such convicted
prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life detained in jails
E in terms of the prescribed policy/directions contained in the
aforesaid paras and shall make available in the prescribed
proforma enclosed herewith the proposal of premature
release of all eligible prisoners to Zonal Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons by 31st October every year.”
F 5. Each Zonal Deputy Inspector General of Prisons was required
to examine all proposals in light of the policy so as to ensure that no
eligible person is left out of consideration. Each Zonal DIG had to submit
the proposal to the Inspector General of Prisons annually by 15 November.
The Inspector General of Prisons was further required to forward the
proposal to the Government annually by 30 November. A Committee
G was constituted in terms of para 8 of the policy for examining and
disposing all cases upon the receipt of the proposal. The Committee was
required to submit its recommendations for premature release of convicted
prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life to the Government annually
by 15 December on which the Government was to take a decision in
H terms of the prescribed procedure.
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 479
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
6. On 28 July 2021, an amendment was brought about to the policy. A
Para 2(b) of the earlier policy document dated 1 August 2018 was
modified so as to provide that a convict undergoing imprisonment for life
would not be released until the age of sixty years is attained. Para 2(b)
as amended on 28 July 2021 was in the following terms:
“2(b) Such male convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment B
for life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is not
covered by any of the sub-rule under prohibited category
defined in para-3 below and who have completed age of 60
years and have undergone, including undertrial custody,
sentence of 16 years without remission and 20 years with
C
remission.”
7. However, convicts falling within the prohibited category set out
in para 3(vi) of the original policy document were granted a relaxation in
the amended policy dated 28 July 2021. Para 2(g) of the amended policy
dated 28 July 2021 is as follows: D
“2(g) Such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for
life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is covered
by the sections mentioned in prohibited category in sub-
rule-(vi), (viii) and (ix) of para-3 below, and who have
completed age of 60 years and have undergone, including E
undertrial custody, sentence of 25 years without remission
and 30 years with remission.”
8. The imposition of the requirement that a convict undergoing
imprisonment for life would not be eligible for premature release until
attaining the age of sixty years led to the institution of petitions under F
Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court. The challenge was inter
alia on the ground that the plea for premature release must be considered
on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of conviction and that a
subsequent policy which operates to restrict the ambit of a policy
prevailing on the date of conviction must not be allowed to obstruct the
plea for release. Moreover, it was urged that the requirement that a G
convict cannot be considered for premature release before the age of
sixty would violate the right to life under Article 21 by subjecting a convict
to long years of incarceration. In several judgments of this Court,
including State of Haryana v Jagdish,1 it has been held that an
1
(2010) 4 SCC 216 H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of
the policy as it stood on the date when the accused was convicted of the
offence by the trial court. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana
v Raj Kumar @ Bitu.2
9. Subsequently, on 27 May 2022, the policy dated 1 August 2018
B (as amended on 28 July 2021) was further amended. The amendments
are specific to paras 1, 2(b), 2(f) and 2(g) and by the insertion of para 12
in the policy dated 1 August 2018, as amended. For the present purpose,
it would suffice to note that the requirement that a convict undergoing
life imprisonment could be considered for release only after attaining the
age of sixty has been deleted. The amended clause in terms of the
C amendment dated 27 May 2022 reads as follows:
“2(b) All such male convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is not
covered by any of the sub-rule under prohibited category
defined in para-3 below and who have undergone, including
D undertrial custody, sentence of 16 years excluding remission
and 20 years including remission.”
10. Moreover, as regards prisoners who fall in the prohibited
category contained in para 3(vi), the relevant clause reads as follows:
E “2(g) All such convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for
life and are incarcerated in prison, whose crime is covered
by the sections mentioned in prohibited category in sub-
rule–(vi), (viii) and (ix) of para-3 below, and who have
undergone, including undertrial custody, sentence of 25 years
with excluding remission and 30 years including remission.”
F
11. Following the amendment, counter affidavits were filed before
this Court in several pending proceedings, including among them the
following:
(i) Dev Nath Singh v State of U P;3
G (ii) Rajkumar v The State of Uttar Pradesh;4 and
(iii) Brij Bhushan v The State of Uttar Pradesh.5
2
(2021) 9 SCC 292
3
Writ Petition (Crl) No 528 of 2021 decided on 21 February 2022
4
Writ Petition (Crl) No 36 of 2022 decided on 11 March 2022
H 5
Writ Petition (Crl) No 75 of 2022 decided on 14 March 2022
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 481
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
12. The orders of this court in above petitions under Article 32 A
noted that the cases of the convicts undergoing life imprisonment would
be dealt with in accordance with the policy as it existed prior to the
amendment which was brought about on 28 July 2021.
13. In order to facilitate the disposal of this batch of cases, an
order was passed by this Court on 24 August 2022 requiring a tabulated B
statement to be prepared dealing with:
(i) The offence for which the petitioners were convicted;
(ii) The date of the judgment of the trial court;
C
(iii) The year of the filing of the criminal appeal before the High
Court;
(iv) The period of imprisonment undergone:
(a) Without remission; and D
(b) With remission;
(v) Whether the petitioners are on bail; and
(vi) The current status of the application for premature release.
E
14. Such a statement has been shared by counsel for the petitioners
and has been shared with Ms Garima Prashad, AAG appearing on behalf
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The AAG has facilitated a due verification
and submitted a statement containing the details of 512 prisoners covered
by the present batch of cases, whose cases would require to be considered
F
in terms of the policy. The statement is annexed to this order.6
15. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution and
Ms Garima Prashad, AAG.
16. The implementation of the policy for premature release has to G
be carried out in an objective and transparent manner as otherwise it
would impinge on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and
21. Many of these life convicts who have suffered long years of
6
Annexure-A H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A incarceration have few or no resources. Lack of literacy, education and
social support structures impede their right to access legal remedies.
Once the state has formulated its policy defining the terms for premature
release, due consideration in terms of the policy must be given to all
eligible convicts. The constitutional guarantees against arbitrary treatment
and of the right to secure life and personal liberty must not be foreclosed
B
by an unfair process of considering applications for premature release in
terms of the policy.
17. Significantly, the policy has been amended to remove the
requirement of convicts submitting an application for premature release
C and instead places the responsibility on the officers of the state to consider
eligible prisoners. The prison administration, legal services authorities at
the district and state level and officers of the police department and the
state must diligently ensure that cases of eligible prisoners are considered
on the basis of policy parameters. We have gained a distinct impression,
based on the cases which have come before the court here and even
D earlier that there is a general apathy towards ensuring that the rights
which have been made available to convicts who have served out their
sentences in terms of the policy are realized. This results in the deprivation
of liberty of those who are entitled to be released. They languish in
overcrowded jails. Their poverty, illiteracy and disabilities occasioned by
E long years of incarceration are compounded by the absence of supportive
social and legal structures. The promise of equality in our Constitution
would not be fulfilled if liberty were to be conditional on an individual’s
resources, which unfortunately many of these cases provide hard evidence
of. This situation must change and hence this court has had to step in.
We now proceed to formulate peremptory directions.
F
18. We direct that:
(i) All cases for premature release of convicts undergoing
imprisonment for life in the present batch of cases shall be
considered in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, as
G amended, subject to the observations which are contained
herein. The restriction that a life convict is not eligible for
premature release until attaining the age of sixty years,
which was introduced by the policy of 28 July 2021, stands
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 483
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
deleted by the amendment dated 27 May 2022. Hence, no A
case for premature release shall be rejected on that ground;
(ii) In the event that any convict is entitled to more liberal
benefits by any of the amendments which have been brought
about subsequent to the policy dated 1 August 2018, the
case for the grant of premature release would be considered B
by granting benefit in terms of more liberal amended para/
clause of the policies. All decisions of premature release of
convicts, including those, beyond the present batch of cases
would be entitled to such a beneficial reading of the policy;
C
(iii) In terms of para 4 of the policy dated 1 August 2018, no
application is required to be submitted by a convict
undergoing life imprisonment for premature release. Further,
through amendment dated 28 July 2021, para 3(i), which
included convicts undergoing life imprisonment who have
not filed application for pre-mature release in the prohibited D
category, has specifically been deleted. Accordingly, all cases
of convicts undergoing life sentence in the State of Uttar
Pradesh who are eligible for being considered for premature
release in terms of the policy, including but not confined to
the five hundred and twelve prisoners involved in the present E
batch of cases, shall be considered in terms of the procedure
for premature release stipulated in the policy;
(iv) The District Legal Services Authorities in the State of Uttar
Pradesh shall take necessary steps in coordination with the
jail authorities to ensure that all eligible cases of prisoners F
who would be entitled to premature release in terms of the
applicable policies, as noticed above, would be duly
considered and no prisoner, who is otherwise eligible for
being considered, shall be excluded from consideration.
(v) These steps to be taken by DLSAs would, include but not G
be limited to, Secretaries of DLSAs seeking status report
on all prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons
falling under their jurisdiction in terms of the format of table
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A prepared in Annexure-A covering the details mentioned in
para 13 of this judgment and ensuring its submission by
relevant authorities within eight weeks of this order as well
as on an annual basis. Further, DLSAs would utilize this
status report to monitor and engage with respective
authorities to ensure the implementation of our directions
B
to ensure premature release in terms of applicable policies
in all eligible cases of convicts undergoing life sentence on
a continuous basis;
(vi) The applications for premature release shall be considered
C expeditiously. Those cases which have already been
processed and in respect of which reports have been
submitted shall be concluded and final decisions intimated
to the convict no later than within a period of one month
from the date of this order. Cases of eligible life convicts
who are (i) above the age of seventy years; or (ii) suffering
D from terminal ailments shall be taken up on priority and
would be disposed of within a period of two months. The
Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall, within
a period of two weeks, lay down the priorities according to
which all other pending cases shall be disposed of. All other
E cases shall, in any event, be disposed of within a period of
four months from the date of this order; and
(vii) Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already
been released on bail by the orders of this Court, the order
granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation
F until the disposal of the application for premature release.
19. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. A copy of the present
judgment shall be transmitted also to the Secretary of the UP State Legal
Services Authority.
G 20. In view of the disposal of the petitions, pending applications
stand disposed of.
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 485
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 487
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 489
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 491
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 493
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 495
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 497
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 499
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 501
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 503
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 505
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 507
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 509
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 511
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 513
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 515
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 517
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 519
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 521
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 523
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 525
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 527
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 529
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 531
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 533
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 535
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 537
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 539
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 541
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 543
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 545
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 547
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 549
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 551
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 553
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 555
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 557
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 559
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 561
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 563
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 565
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 567
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 569
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 571
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 573
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 575
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 577
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 579
& ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H Nidhi Jain Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "premature release"Sign in to search