Asking Prisoner To Wait For 1.5 Years For Successive Parole In Case Of Emergency Is Arbitrary: Bombay HC
Bombay HC: Asking Prisoner to Wait 1.5 Years for Successive Parole in Emergency is Arbitrary
1. Background
A prisoner had sought successive parole on the ground of a family emergency.
Authorities rejected the request citing the Rule requiring a gap of 1.5 years between two paroles.
The matter reached the Bombay High Court, which held that in cases of genuine emergencies, compelling a prisoner to wait for 1.5 years is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2. Court’s Reasoning
(a) Right to Life Extends to Prisoners
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and dignity even for convicts.
Parole, though not a right in ordinary sense, is a humanitarian relief in emergencies (death, illness, marriage of close relatives).
Forcing a convict to wait mechanically for 1.5 years, even during emergencies, is against fairness and reasonableness.
🔹 Case Law:
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494 – Prisoners do not lose fundamental rights, except those curtailed by the procedure established by law.
(b) Mechanical Application of Rules is Arbitrary
Rules providing minimum gaps between successive paroles are framed to prevent misuse.
But, in case of unforeseen emergencies, a rigid application of this waiting period defeats the very purpose of parole.
Authorities must exercise discretion case-to-case, instead of rejecting mechanically.
🔹 Case Law:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 – Any “procedure” under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable.
(c) Judicial Oversight of Prison Authorities
High Court emphasized that parole rules are not meant to punish further, but to provide humanitarian relief.
Courts can intervene when authorities fail to exercise discretion judiciously.
🔹 Case Law:
Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55 – Parole should be considered liberally for good conduct prisoners, especially in emergencies.
3. Court’s Decision
The Bombay HC quashed the rejection order.
Held that asking a prisoner to wait 1.5 years despite a genuine emergency is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 21.
Directed authorities to consider successive parole applications in emergency situations without rigidly applying the waiting period rule.
4. Significance of the Judgment
Reaffirms that prisoners retain their basic rights under Article 21.
Prevents bureaucratic rigidity from overriding humanitarian concerns.
Ensures that parole remains a relief mechanism, not a hollow formality.
✅ Conclusion:
The Bombay HC rightly held that forcing a prisoner to wait 1.5 years for successive parole in case of emergencies is arbitrary and unconstitutional. This judgment strikes a balance between preventing misuse of parole and protecting human dignity of prisoners.
RELATED Blog
0 comments