New Delhi, June 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court today directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 5 lakh as ad hoc compensation to a man who was kept behind bars for 28 days despite a clear bail order from the apex court.

The delay, caused by what the authorities called a “clerical error,” the omission of a sub-section in the bail order was termed by the court as a gross violation of the constitutional right to liberty.

A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh was hearing a habeas corpus matter after it emerged that the Ghaziabad jail authorities had failed to release an accused despite a Supreme Court order passed on April 29 and a formal release order dated May 27.

The man, arrested under Section 366 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, remained in custody till June 24. The authorities cited that the bail order mentioned “Section 5” without the sub-clause “(i)” as the reason for not executing the release.

Justice Viswanathan remarked sharply, “Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities. When this court has given a valid order granting liberty, how can that be taken away?”

In scathing observations directed at the jail officials and the state administration, the court said, “Is the omission of a sub-section a valid ground to keep someone in custody? What message are we sending if we keep people behind bars despite clear judicial orders?”

During the hearing, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the bail order did not specify “Section 5(i)”, which led to confusion.

Justice Viswanathan retorted, “You released him yesterday only after we intervened. That shows you didn’t need any further orders. This hyper-technical ground was the only excuse for denying liberty. Which provision says that if a sub-section is missing, a person must remain in jail despite a bail order?”

When Prashad submitted that the DIG (Prisons) of Meerut had been asked to conduct an internal inquiry, the bench firmly rejected the idea, “No, we need a judicial inquiry, not an in-house one.”

Justice Viswanathan added, “We don’t know how many others are languishing in jails for similar reasons. We want to rule out any possibility of vested interests. There are so many jails. We will not leave this case.”

Accordingly, the court directed the Principal District Judge, Ghaziabad, to conduct a judicial inquiry into the reasons for the delay in executing the release order; whether the omission of the sub-section was genuinely the cause; or whether there was any “sinister” intent or gross negligence involved.

Justice Viswanathan reminded the prison authorities of their obligation under Article 144 of the Constitution, which mandates all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.

He said, “Officers must know they are to work in aid of the court. We want you to sensitise jail staff. Let the DG Prisons appear on video and explain to all officers how liberty is paramount and judicial orders must be obeyed. This is not optional.”

The bench also warned that the Rs 5 lakh compensation was provisional, and if the judicial inquiry fixed blame on specific officers, the amount would be recovered personally from them.

“Let us be very clear,” the court said, “If vested interests are involved, necessary punishment will be awarded. Liberty is too sacred to be violated so casually.”

The Supreme Court’s order also recorded the assurance from the UP DIG (Prisons) that steps would be taken to prevent such violations in the future. The DIG appeared via video, and the Jail Superintendent of Ghaziabad was present in person.

Justice Viswanathan remarked, “We only hope that no other convict or under trial is languishing in jail on account of such technicalities. Please ensure that not a single under trial remains in custody under your command due to this reason.”

When the AAG tried to cite a High Court ruling to justify the jail authorities’ conduct, the court said, “That High Court order was for lower courts, not jail authorities. If courts below do not insist on the sub-section, how can jailors impose that requirement?”

The Court held, “Each one of the stakeholders knew the offence, the crime number, and the sections involved. The bail order was as clear as daylight. Yet, the applicant was kept in a bureaucratic spin for nearly a month. This is not just unfortunate, it's preposterous.”

The matter has been posted next for compliance and further hearing on June 27.

UNI SNG PRS