Possession of mobile phone insufficient to deny parole: Punjab and Haryana HC Full Bench
The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the mere possession of a mobile phone by an inmate, without evidence of its misuse in committing an offense, does not justify the denial of parole.
The ruling overturns the earlier decision in Kulwant alias Monu’s case, where the constitutional validity of denying parole on such grounds was upheld.
The Bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Deepak Sibal, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Justice Meenakshi I Mehta, and Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, emphasized that denying parole based solely on unauthorized possession of a mobile phone violated the principles of fair trial and the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The core issue before the Bench was whether the unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by an inmate, without a conviction from a regular court, should be grounds to deny parole.
The Bench unequivocally held that this alone did not disqualify an inmate from seeking parole. The judgment stated, “Mere unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, when no valid proof has been generated regarding its misuse for committing heinous offenses, cannot be a sufficient reason to deprive the prisoner of parole.”
Referring to fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Bench observed, “The presumption of innocence is a golden thread running through the fabric of criminal jurisprudence. Until proven guilty, an accused or prisoner should be accorded all rights, including the right to apply for parole, which is an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21.”
The court emphasized that actions infringing upon this presumption must be supported by substantial evidence.
The Bench also criticized arbitrary classification among prisoners, noting that denying parole based on unauthorized possession without evidence of misuse constituted an unreasonable classification.
“To deny parole merely on the ground of unauthorized possession, without any evidence of misuse or conviction, is to create an unreasonable classification that fails the test of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the judgment read.
The Bench further flagged the frivolous reasons cited in parole denials, often based on stereotyped, uninformed, or perfunctory reports. The judgment criticized these decisions as exhibiting gross non-application of mind by the competent authorities.
“Prison authorities must make a sombre and objective application of mind to parole applications, recognizing the inmate’s liberty,” the court noted.
The court ordered District Magistrates and other competent authorities to ensure that parole applications are only denied when supported by “cogent, tangible, and concrete evidence” indicating an imminent threat to security and peace. Parole should not be denied mechanically. Authorities failing to apply their minds objectively would face censure or disciplinary action for prompting frivolous litigation.