Minimum One Year Imprisonment Criteria For Seeking Parole Not Absolute, Can Be Relaxed For Filing SLP: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the minimum one year imprisonment criteria for being eligible for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute and can be relaxed in special circumstances like filing SLP against conviction before the Apex Court. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the criteria can be relaxed where strict application would result in denial of a fundamental or...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the minimum one year imprisonment criteria for being eligible for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute and can be relaxed in special circumstances like filing SLP against conviction before the Apex Court.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the criteria can be relaxed where strict application would result in denial of a fundamental or statutory right of the convict.
“Pursuing a legal remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through an SLP constitutes such a special circumstance,” the Court said.
Justice Dudeja granted relief to a man convicted in a robbery case. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The judgment was passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karardooma Courts, on November 26 last year. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court on June 30.
He sought release on parole for four weeks for filing SLP against his conviction before the Supreme Court and to maintain social ties with his family.
His counsel contended that the one year bar under Rule 1210(I) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 cannot override a fundamental right to legal recourse. Filing of an SLP is a “special circumstance” within the meaning of the Rules, it was argued.
Granting parole to him for a week, Justice Dudeja said: “…the 01 year stipulation under Rule 1210(I) cannot override the petitioner's constitutional right of access to justice. The Rule must be read harmoniously with Article 21, ensuring that procedural requirements do not stifle substantive rights.”
The Court said that it is the right of a citizen to effectively pursue his legal remedy in the last court of justice in the country by filing SLP through a counsel of his own choice which is a valuable right.
It added that the said right cannot be withheld merely on the basis of past conduct of the convict or on the ground that free legal aid is available and that SLP can be filed from the jail itself.
“Needless to say, availing his legal remedy in the Apex Court of the country is the right of the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to withdraw the same,” the Court said.
It noted that the convict had not availed parole or furlough till date, that his conduct was satisfactory and no punishments were awarded to him.
“Moreover, the incarceration period would have disrupted his family life and would have impacted him physically and psychologically,” the Court said.
However, it clarified that the order was being passed considering the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent for general relaxation of Rule 1210 (I) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advs
Title: NADEEM v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1528