Convict's right to conjugal relations not 'absolute': HC
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, February 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a convict’s right to have conjugal relations was not “an absolute one”. It was, among other things, subject to reasonable restrictions, social order, security concerns, and good behaviour in the jail.
Subject to conditions
A convict’s right to have conjugal relations was subject to ‘all those conditions as prescribed under the statute’. As such, the right was not an absolute and subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’, ‘social order’, ‘security concerns’, ‘good behaviour’ in the jail etc. Punjab & Haryana High Court Bench
The ruling by the Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi came on a wife’s petition seeking parole for her convict husband to enable them to have conjugal relations for procreation. In an alternative, she sought permission to procreate/maintain conjugal relations within the jail premises.
The Bench was told that the petitioner’s husband was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, vide judgment dated May 31, 2018, after a murder case was registered in July 2016 under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act at the Rajendra Park police station in Gurugram. He was sentenced to “life imprisonment till the remainder of his life without remission”, vide judgment dated January 22, last year, in another case as well. The petitioner submitted she got married in April 2016 and her husband was arrested in August 2016. He had been in custody ever since.
Referring to the High Court judgment in Jasvir Singh’s case, the Bench asserted that a convict’s right to have conjugal relations was subject to “all those conditions as prescribed under the statute”. As such, the right was not an absolute and subject to “reasonable restrictions”, “social order”, “security concerns”, “good behaviour” in the jail etc.
The Bench added that the Full Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras was also “quite categorical” of the opinion that the right to have conjugal relations was not absolute and “what is available to a convict is his right to obtain infertility treatment”. It added that a convict could not enjoy the same rights available to a common man as a distinction was required to be drawn between a law-abiding citizen and law-violating prisoner.
The Bench further said that the convict’s right to avail parole would be governed by Jasvir Singh’s judgment until jail reforms committee formulated a scheme for creating an environment for conjugal and family visit for jail inmates.
The Bench observed that Haryana had constituted a jail reforms committee on September 27, 2021, and would make its recommendation within a year after visiting major jail premises. The petitioner/her husband were at liberty to apply for parole in terms of the instructions emanating from Jasvir Singh’s case and their application would be considered in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act subject to conditions prescribed under the statute. In the alternative, they could await the policy’s formulation by the jail reforms committee and apply thereafter.
