The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked senior IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh government as to why proceedings of contempt and perjury be not initiated against him for "misleading" the court in a plea related to remission of life term convict.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said it will go deep into the matter to ascertain the truth and gave one last opportunity to the state government to come clean by giving the exact sequence of events following its May 13 order on processing the files related to remission.
"We direct the chief secretary of the state to file a personal affidavit in this court to explain the entire episode and the conduct of the state and its officers by September 24," the bench said.
The court also slammed the state government for making the IAS officer a "scapegoat" by shunting him out for giving "false" information to court and blaming the chief minister's office for not processing files related to remission of sentences of convicts when the model code of conduct was in force.
The top court said state government officials did not open the email of the jail authorities intimating them about the order of the court that the model code of conduct (MCC), which was in force till June 6 on account of the Lok Sabha elections, will not come in the way of processing the files on remission of sentences.
The court issued a show cause notice to senior IAS officer Rajesh Kumar Singh, who until recently was the principal secretary of Uttar Pradesh's prison administration department before being shunted out on September 7 by the state government for "misleading" the court.
"Prime facie it appears to us that the stand taken by him (the IAS officer) in the affidavit is contrary to the statements made by him on August 12 when he appeared virtually," the bench said while issuing notice to Singh as to why proceedings for criminal contempt should not be initiated against him.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the UP government, said the IAS officer has been recently relieved of all his duties and disciplinary action has been initiated against him.
"Prime facie, we find that he is being made scapegoat by the state government. This is because from the records it is clear that a section officer did not open the email intimating our orders from the jail authorities till June 6, when the Model Code of Conduct got over. It means until then the files did not move a single inch," the bench told Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, appearing for the state government.
"Entire state machinery was sleeping," the bench observed while noting that the act of not processing the remission files during the operation of the model code of conduct "was clear defiance of our orders."
The top court said it was "unfortunate" that the IAS officer tried to blame the advocate on-record for the state government in the Supreme Court for not intimating the orders properly.
"If this was the attitude of a senior officer of the state government, then we will have to go deep into the matter. We would also like to know whether any order was passed for not processing the files related to the remission till the model code of conduct got over," the bench said and listed the matter for September 27.
On August 27, the top court had admonished Singh for filing "false" affidavits, warning that it will not tolerate an IAS officer "lying" to the court and changing stand according to convenience. It had noted that the stand taken by Singh in the affidavit affirmed on August 14 was completely different from the solemn statements made by the officer which were recorded in the apex court's order of August 12.
Singh had on August 12 submitted that it was the chief minister's office which delayed the processing of a file related to remission the sentence of a convict due to the MCC. The IAS officer, however, later apologised and submitted that he had earlier inadvertently told the court that the chief minister's secretariat did not accept the files related to remission.
The bench had granted temporary bail to the convict on whose plea the entire controversy broke out.
On May 13, the top court had issued a direction to the state government to consider the case of convict Ashok for grant of permanent remission and said MCC will not be a hindrance to processing files related to grant of remission.