Prisoners are not chattel: Delhi High Court tells jail authorities to be sensitive in parole matters

The Delhi High Court recently urged jail authorities to handle parole (temporary leaves from prison) requests by prisoners with more sensitivity..A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that prisoners cannot be treated as "chattel" who are devoid of basic human rights. The Court made the observation while extending four weeks of parole to a rape and murder convict who was serving a life imprisonment sentence, of which he had already served 20 years in jail. One of the grounds on which the prisoner's parole was opposed was that his conduct in jail was not good. In this regard, the authorities told the Court that the prisoner had attempted to die by suicide in 2022. .The Court observed that the jail authorities should be conscious that a suicide attempt reflected a mental health condition, which was all the more reason to grant him parole so that he could maintain social ties."(The suicide attempt) should have rung the alarm bell that the convict needs to maintain social ties for his mental health. To treat the same as a crime and to issue a 'warning' reflects again the scant understanding of the Jail Administration regarding the plight of the Petitioner," Justice Krishna said..The Court added that it was high time that jail authorities showed more sensitivity in such matters. "It cannot be overlooked that he (the prisoner) has been in jail for more than 20 years; may be for a crime that he has committed but that does not denude him of his basic Right to Life. Merely because he is confined to jail, does not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic Fundamental Human Rights. It is high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrate a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters," the Court remarked..The Court also criticised the jail authorities for citing the prisoner's delay in surrendering back to prison after the end of an earlier parole period, to oppose his latest parole plea. The Court noted that the prisoner had already explained that he was late to surrender as he was unaware of the surrender date amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, in a January 2024 order, the High Court examined the delay and concluded that it was not a valid ground to deny the prisoner parole. Despite this, the jail authorities once again rejected the petitioner’s parole request on the same basis.This prompted the Court to make it clear to the prison authorities that in such cases, parole requests cannot be repeatedly denied on the same ground. "It is hereby directed that while considering the Parole/Furlough Applications, the same ground should not be repeatedly reiterated for rejection of Parole/Furlough Application. Once a judicial mind has been disclosed in any Order about the validity of any ground for Rejection or Non- Rejection of the Parole/Furlough Application, the same should be more judiciously and scrupulously adhered to by the Jail Authorities," the Court said. .The Court added that jail authorities should put in more effort to examine why prisoners make parole requests. In the present case, the prisoner had sought parole to undertake some house repairs and arrange funds for his family. The prison authorities had rejected the parole request on the ground that it was made for 'generic' reasons. "Instead of merely terming it as generic, little more effort on the part of the Jail administration, to at least try to verify the reasons given by him, would have been more appreciable. Even otherwise, the Parole is granted to establish social ties, which at least should have weighed with the Jail Authorities, to consider his Application of Parole. It is indeed a very unhappy situation where time and again the Petitioner is being pushed to approach the Court, for grant of Parole," the Court said. .Another "glaring" error noticed by the Court was the delay on the part of the prison authorities in deciding on the parole request."The most glaring aspect which emerges is that despite an application for Parole being filed in November, 2024, it does not get decided within the mandated one month period but it takes a Writ Petition and a Notice by this Court for the Jail Authorities, to decide a Petition and that too in the most arbitrary way, only because of this present Writ Petition," the Court noted.It eventually ordered the release of the prisoner (petitioner) on parole for four weeks subject to various conditions, including that he furnish a ₹10,000 personal bond. .Advocate Zeeshan Diwan appeared for the petitioner.Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi along with Advocates Mathew M Philip, Sangeet Sibou and Aniket Kumar Singh appeared for the State..[Read Order]