Frame Rules For Convicts Unable To Surrender After Lapse Of Parole Due To Health Issues, Age: Delhi High Court To Authorities
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Authorities to frame rules to cater to situations where convicts are unable to surrender even after lapse of the period of release on parole or furlough, due to being incapacitated by virtue of their health or age.Justice Amit Mahajan said that in such cases, multiple convicts may be forced to suffer tribulations of legal limbo and left to wait for...
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Authorities to frame rules to cater to situations where convicts are unable to surrender even after lapse of the period of release on parole or furlough, due to being incapacitated by virtue of their health or age.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that in such cases, multiple convicts may be forced to suffer tribulations of legal limbo and left to wait for the consideration of their case for premature release.
“Such convicts are often required to stay outside beyond the permissible period for reasons that are outside their control. As noted above, as the permissible period of parole can only be up to a maximum of sixteen weeks, it is incumbent on the appropriate authorities to frame rules covering such exigencies or to amend the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 providing for extension of parole or furlough, as the case may be,” the Court said.
Advocate Vivek Gurnani appeared as amicus curiae in the matter.
The judge made the observations while dealing with a woman's plea seeking extension of parole for 12 months on account of her medical condition.
She, along with her husband and son, was convicted under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She was sentenced to undergo seven years of imprisonment.
Her son expired in March 2015. Her husband also died in jail due to a cardiac arrest in 2017. In 2017, she was granted parole for one month considering her age and her precarious medical condition.
Shortly after her release, she had a fractured hip injury and her parole was extended for a further period of three months. Thereafter, she had constantly been on parole on account of her medical condition.
The status report said that she was bedridden and was not able to walk or perform her day-to-day activities without the help of an attendant. She sought extension of parole for a further period of 12 months on account of her ailing health conditions.
The Court noted that in 2024, a coordinate bench had extended the woman's parole for a further period of 12 months, considering the fact she was 80 years old, was bedridden and was unable to walk on her own.
It said that she continued to remain enlarged on parole after almost eight years of the liberty first being granted to her.
The judge said that Rules 1212 and 1212A of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provide that that a convict can be released on parole for a maximum period of eight weeks in a conviction year, which can only be extended by another eight weeks of parole in emergent situations.
Noting that a woman was bedridden and was not in a position to move or surrender, the Court said:
“This Court cannot be so inhumane so as to adopt a callous approach which is blind and unfeeling to the plight of an aged woman, who is already suffering from a myriad of ailments. By mere virtue of conviction, a convict is not denuded of their fundamental rights and the punishment cannot be one which defiles the dignity of an inmate.”
The Court observed that interests of justice would be met if the woman was confined to her home till her case was considered for clemency or premature release.
“…this Court considers it apposite to direct that the petitioner be confined in her home under the care of her son–Tilak Raj, who has signed the affidavit in support of the present petition, till such time when her case is considered for premature release,” the Court directed.
It further directed the concerned authorities to decide the case of the woman for premature release expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) for the State along with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Mr. Vijay Misra & Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Adv's
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Amicus Curiae along with Mr. Agni Sen, Advs
Title: KAILASH WATI v. STATE OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1484