Frame clear guidelines treating period of temporary release of large number of prisoners: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 17

More than three years after World Health Organisation declared Covid-19 as a health emergency, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called upon the Executive and the policymakers to come out with clear guidelines on how the period of temporary release of a large number of prisoners during the pandemic is to be treated.

Justice Arun Monga made it clear that the guidelines were required to specify whether the period would count towards the total sentence and its extent if the answer was in affirmative

The direction by Justice Monga came on petitions seeking a direction to the State of Punjab and other respondents to count the pandemic special parole period towards actual sentence. The State’s stand in the matter was that the period of the said temporary release could not be counted towards a prisoner’s total sentence.

Justice Monga asserted the guidelines should incorporate appropriate provisions for crediting the time spent on parole against an individual’s original sentence preventing any potential violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21.

Referring to a hypothetical scenario, Justice Monga asserted a person sentenced to two years imprisonment in 2019, but granted involuntary parole for 11 months the following year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, would surrender back in jail after the period’s end. If the authorities started counting the imprisonment period from the date of surrender, it would result in the individual serving a sentence longer than the original two-year term.

Such an outcome would violate Article 21, which safeguarded an individual’s choice and fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It was, thus, crucial to examine the legal framework governing parole and its impact on the total term of imprisonment to ensure compliance with the Constitutional protections outlined in Article 21.

Justice Monga asserted failing to credit the involuntary parole duration towards the sentence could potentially lead to an individual enduring incarceration beyond what was originally determined by the judiciary, thereby infringing on their constitutionally protected rights.

Justice Monga added parole’s main goal was to help prisoners reintegrate into society beyond just their immediate family. But the State government’s parole policies during the Covid pandemic did not succeed in achieving the aim. They led to unnecessary delays in determining eligibility for sentence remission.

“In situations where a prisoner does not request temporary parole with the goal of serving the entire sentence promptly, the exclusion of special involuntary parole in the actual sentence puts the petitioner at a disadvantage. This exclusion effectively prolongs the petitioner’s sentence. Moreover, even though the official count for the parole period may have paused, a person’s biological clock keeps ticking throughout the period of such involuntary release. This can significantly affect an individual’s future aspirations they had hoped to pursue after serving their sentence,” Justice Monga asserted.