The Supreme Court on Tuesday sternly admonished a senior Uttar Pradesh government official for submitting what it described as a ‘false’ affidavit regarding a remission case, signaling a no-tolerance policy towards dishonesty from government officers in judicial proceedings.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih called out Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary of Uttar Pradesh’s Prison Administration Department, for his inconsistent statements and warned of potential severe consequences. The issue came to light after Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, representing the state, claimed Singh misunderstood a prior court order.
“We will not tolerate an IAS officer lying to this court and changing stands as per convenience,” Justice Oka rebuked during the proceedings. The bench highlighted that Singh’s affidavit, sworn on August 14, conflicted dramatically with statements he made to the court just two days earlier.
On August 12, Singh had attributed delays in processing a remission file to the Chief Minister’s office, citing disruptions caused by the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct during the recent Lok Sabha elections. However, later, he contradicted this explanation, stating it was an inadvertent error and that the Chief Minister’s secretariat had actually rejected the files due to the Model Code of Conduct.
The justices expressed skepticism about Singh’s explanations, stating, “You are not an illiterate person that you could not understand what the court said. You are a senior officer of the state government.”
The court’s frustration stemmed from the broader issue of non-compliance with its orders regarding the consideration of premature releases, which are mandated to be implemented within specified timeframes. “Some officers must go to jail, otherwise this conduct will not stop. We are not going to spare him or the state must take action against him,” the bench warned, indicating a potential judicial crackdown on bureaucratic inertia and dishonesty.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further proceedings for September 9, where it intends to delve deeper into the matter and decide on the appropriate course of action based on the full range of evidence, including the contradictory affidavits submitted by Singh.
