Convicts should not be forced to litigate for statutory parole rights: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 15

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the convicts cannot be compelled to litigate for availing their statutory right to parole. The Bench also imposed Rs 50,000 costs for failure to perform legal obligations on an “erring official” belonging to the state of Punjab.

The direction by Justice Harkesh Manuja of the high court came on a petition filed by a convict. He was, among other things, seeking directions to the state of Punjab and other respondents to allow emergency parole to carryout house repair. Directions were also sought for setting aside an order, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for emergency parole was declined.

Justice Manuja’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner could not be granted the benefit following restriction on release of jail inmates on parole during the operation of model code issued by the Election Commission of India.

Justice Manuja asserted no document whatsoever had been brought to the court’s notice absolutely prohibiting the grant of parole when the model code of conduct was in force. Besides this, the rights of a convict to parole during the model code of conduct’s operation had already been exposited by the court vide decision dated March 28, 2019.

“In the present case, the official respondents have failed to perform their statutory obligations, compelling the convict/individual to approach this court just for the purpose of availing the statutory rights of release on parole, causing unnecessary litigation before this court, which is already burdened,” Justice Harkesh Manuja asserted.

Justice Manuja asserted the perusal of the case file, and the facts and circumstances of the matter, made it apparent that the official-respondents’ conduct had not been fair either to the court or even to the petitioner repeatedly compelled to approach the court just for grant of the benefit, though it was part of his statutory rights.

In his detailed order, Justice Manuja asserted not only previous judgments by the high court on the same point of law had been blatantly ignored, but unacceptable excuses were provided to “justify the undeniable”. As such, the erring officer was burdened with Rs 50,000 costs.