New Delhi: In a case that showcases the sorry state of India’s legal aid system, a 37-year-old murder convict with a mental health condition spent 10 years in jail with no legal assistance to appeal his life sentence.
The Supreme Court has pulled up the state of Uttarakhand in connection with the case.
When an appeal was finally filed in the Uttarakhand High Court in 2021, the legal aid counsel representing the convict, Pramod Singh, failed to disclose that he had developed a mental health condition during his incarceration.
Informed by Singh’s counsel that he had developed psychosis while in jail, the apex court, taking note of the poor legal aid service provided to Singh, on Monday asked the state counsel why he cannot be released on probation.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh was left surprised with the state government’s response. The State claimed Singh cannot be released because he is suffering from ‘Psychosis NOS’.
Psychosis NOS is defined as an atypical and unspecified psychotic condition, whereas psychosis refers to a condition that affects the mind where there has been some loss of contact with reality.
To gain more clarity on why Singh was not provided legal aid in time and an appeal was filed almost a decade after he was convicted, the top court has summoned Uttarakhand’s principal chief secretary.
Uttarakhand has cited Singh’s mental condition as a ground to oppose his bail.
The case
Pramod Singh was convicted in 2011 by a Champawat sessions court for allegedly assaulting his mother with a stick, causing her death in 2009. His father and wife, who tried to intervene, were also injured in the incident. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
As someone who did not have the means to defend himself, Singh was entitled to avail legal aid from the state. Though this was provided to him in the trial court, the same was not extended to him at the appropriate time when he had to appeal in the high court. The Uttarakhand government has failed to satisfy the top court on the question of whether Singh was given legal advice to appeal against the HC or not.
When the appeal was filed in the Uttarakhand HC in July 2021, the legal aid counsel, as mentioned earlier, did not disclose Singh’s condition. The HC rejected Singh’s plea for suspension of his sentence as well as bail, citing the seriousness of the charge.
What happened in SC
In his appeal before the top court, Singh has asked for bail and suspension of his sentence till the disposal of his appeal by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Singh’s lawyer Sriram Parakkat informed the bench that Singh developed psychosis while in custody.
The Uttarakhand government has opposed Singh’s appeal for his release and even argued against his premature release despite his prolonged incarceration of more than 15 years.
Through an affidavit, filed on 27 August, the State informed the court that Singh’s premature release was considered thrice between December 2023 and December 2024. But each time, the government declined to release him primarily on three grounds—he had killed his own mother out of anger, he was stubborn and short-tempered and he had an earlier conviction against him in an attempt to murder case.
Admitting that he was diagnosed as “psychotic” when he was brought to Dehradun jail on 26 August 2011 after his conviction, the State said his release from the prison may “may pose a threat to society at large”.
Since August 2011, Singh has been receiving treatment from a psychiatrist visiting the jail. He was last reviewed in July this year. “That at present, he is undergoing regular monitoring by the psychiatrist who visits the jail, that ensures he receives proper medication, which may not be the case, should he be released,” the State said.
However, on 15 August, after the top court issued notice on his appeal, Singh’s psychological assessment was carried out at the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities near Dehradun. The final diagnosis in the report was ‘Psychosis NOS’.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: 4.5 yrs custody, 43 adjournments & a bail petition: Why SC slammed Allahabad HC for delayed hearing