Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Fair Decisions On Parole Pleas, Cites 'Recurring' Pattern Of Rejection

The Delhi High Court has passed a slew of directions to ensure that convicts' applications for parole and furlough are decided in a fair and reasoned manner, avoiding the “recurring” pattern of their rejection without proper reasoning.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the competent authority to specifically record the reasons for rejection, clearly indicating the particular instances of misconduct or adverse conduct by the convicts, along with the relevant date being cited as a ground for rejection, as reflected in the nominal rolls.

“The competent authority shall also take note as to whether the punishment(s), if any, awarded to a convict were major or minor in nature, and whether the same were approved by the concerned District & Sessions Judge, in accordance with the Delhi Prison Rules,” the Court said.

It further directed the competent authority to ensure that the entire history qua the jail conduct of the convict and record of his or her release be duly considered before taking a decision.

The Court said that reference to any previous releases on furlough, parole, emergency parole, or interim bail, as well as whether the convict had surrendered on time and complied with the conditions imposed must also be recorded by the authority.

Justice Sharma said that she expects that the authorities shall adhere to the directions in letter and spirit, so that decisions relating to parole and furlough applications are rendered with due regard to objectivity, fairness, and the reformative purpose of the imprisonment.

“A copy of this judgment be also sent by the Registry to all the Jail Superintendents in Delhi, and to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of NCT of Delhi for information and compliance,” the Court ordered.

The judge was dealing with a plea filed by a murder convict seeking his release on parole for a month to enable him to re-establish social ties with his family and reintegrate into society.

The man was convicted under the Arms Act and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017.

Allowing the plea, the Court noted that the convict's application for parole was rejected on the sole ground that his overall jail conduct was reported to be unsatisfactory.

However, it added, that his Nominal Roll disclosed that his conduct for the past one year has been specifically noted as satisfactory.

The Court observed that the competent authority, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into account the good conduct of the convict spanning over six years, as well as the fact that he had never misused the liberty of parole or furlough granted to him.

“The competent authority appears to have mechanically relied on the two minor punishments awarded to the petitioner in the years 2018–2019, without appreciating that the petitioner‟s conduct since then had remained satisfactory and he had been granted benefit of furlough several times,” it said.

Title: KANTA PRASAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Click here to read order