Delhi High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Tihar Jail Superintendent For Delaying Prisoner's Parole Release
Tihar Jail entrance (DNA India)
The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against a Tihar Jail Superintendent, holding that his conduct in preventing the release of an undertrial prisoner on parole amounted to a wilful violation of the judicial order.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Jail Authority had effectively frustrated the Court's order directing the release of the prisoner Anwar Hussain, who had already spent 5 years and 5 months in custody as an undertrial.
The Court was hearing a plea filed Hussain seeking directions for his release on parole.
He had initially challenged the rejection of his parole application by the Jail Authority and sought eight weeks' parole to pursue his legal remedies before the Supreme Court following dismissal of his criminal appeal.
On July 30, the High Court had directed that Hussain be released on parole for four weeks, subject to conditions to be imposed by the competent authority. However, after the authority failed to impose such conditions, Hussain continued to remain in prison despite the order.
Hussain subsequently moved another application, pointing out that the benefit of the Court's order could not be rendered ineffective merely because of an administrative difficulty in formulating or imposing parole conditions.
The Court thereafter, on August 11, modified its earlier order and itself imposed specific conditions for his release.
Despite this, when Hussain's family approached the jail authorities to comply with the conditions, they were told that the Jail Authority would not act on the August 11 order unless it was received directly from the High Court.
In his order, Justice Kaurav noted that the order was a digitally signed public document whose veracity could easily be verified.
The Court observed that the Jail Authority appeared to have given a “flimsy and unjustifiable reason” in an attempt to frustrate the Court's order and prevent Hussain's release.
The Court had thereafter directed the Jail Superintendent to remain personally present and explain his conduct, while also asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Appearing before the Court, the Jail Superintendent stated that his actions were not motivated by malice. He explained that he had not released Hussain because he was unable to verify the address where he was to reside, and claimed that such a condition was “customary” and “routine”.
However, the Court questioned why the Jail Superintendent had not utilised his experience regarding such “customary” and “routine” conditions when the Court had initially directed Hussain's release on July 30.
“The Court wonders why the able Jail Superintendent did not utilise his vast experience of what customary and routine conditions are when the Court had originally directed for the release of the petitioner on 30.07.2026 i.e., approximately 1.5 months ago, on the basis of conditions which were to be imposed by the Jail Authority,” the Court said.
The Court observed that the explanation was an attempt to justify the exercise of powers by the Jail Superintendent, while the actual position was that the authority was seeking to impose the conditions over and above those prescribed by the Court in its August 11 order.
“There is no mention, at all, in the order dated 11.08.2026 of a condition pertaining to the residence of the petitioner,” the Court noted.
It further observed that the Jail Authority's actions had resulted in a citizen, who had remained undertrial for 5 years and 5 months, continuing to remain behind bars despite an order of a Constitutional Court directing his release.
“Owing to flimsy and untenable excuses of the Jail Authority and Dr. Kumar, a mockery has been made of the legal system. The right of the petitioner to be governed by the rule of law and to have his personal liberty protected, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, has been violated,” the Court said.
Finding that the jail superintendent had imposed additional conditions contrary to the August 11 order, the Court held that his conduct amounted to a wilful violation of its order and accordingly drew contempt proceedings against him.
The jail superintendent accepted notice of contempt and has been granted time to file his response explaining why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Jail Superintendent has also been directed to remain personally present on the next date of hearing- September 22.
Title: ANWAR HUSSAIN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI