A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the affidavit, sworn on August 14, 2024, contained statements that directly contradicted the officer’s previous stance. Specifically, the affidavit suggested that the delay was due to a lapse in communication of a court order and did not mention the Chief Minister’s Secretariat’s involvement, despite earlier claims that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was responsible for the hold-up.
The Court was particularly critical of the statements made in paragraph 5, clause (g) of the affidavit. Hence, indicating that they appeared to be false. Given the seriousness of the issue, the bench warned that it might consider initiating contempt proceedings against the Principal Secretary. This was for providing false information under oath. The officer was granted the opportunity to submit an additional affidavit. It was to clarify his position before the next hearing on August 27, 2024.
Background
The controversy arose from a Supreme Court order dated May 13, 2024, which granted the Uttar Pradesh government one month to decide on the remission plea of petitioner Ashok Kumar. The order also clarified that the MCC would not obstruct the decision-making process. However, the file remained dormant until June 6, 2024, even though the MCC had ended on June 2, 2024. The Principal Secretary’s affidavit claimed that the court’s order was not communicated promptly to his office. The Court found inconsistent with his earlier oral testimony. During the hearing, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Principal Secretary’s attempt. It was to shift the blame onto the Standing Counsel and noted that the delay in processing the file. This includes its submission to the Chief Minister’s office on August 5, 2024. Subsequently, to the Governor on August 13, 2024, was not adequately explained. In light of the apparent discrepancies, the Court granted temporary bail to the petitioner, directing him to present himself before the Trial Court to determine appropriate bail conditions. The petitioner was also given the option to amend his petition to challenge the denial of his remission plea. The case will be revisited on August 27, 2024, with the Principal Secretary ordered to attend the hearing in person.
ApniLaw AI
Need the case law behind this point?
Ask ApniLaw AI in plain words. Every point of the answer shows the judgment paragraph or Act section behind it, with its page and paragraph number.
