P&H High Court Emphasizes "Humanized Confinement", Says Life Convict's Need To Care For Disabled Son Relevant For Parole

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that parole, being a beneficial measure with reformative and humanitarian aims, cannot be refused on mere surmise that the convict's release might cause a local law-and-order disturbance.

A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol granted eight weeks' parole to a convict serving life imprisonment for murder. He had sought release to care for his son, who has been certified as having 50% disability due to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). The Bench observed:

"The petitioner's ground holds serious weightage. A child suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, certified disability up to the extent of the same being 50%, certificate...needs continuous care and the presence of the accused is essential to stabilize his condition. In light of the above, the child's condition is serious and progressive, its management depends on continuous parental involvement, and public health facilities cannot be assumed to respond to an emergency in time without parental intervention."

It pointed that the, "The medical position supports a humane, evidence-based assessment of the petitioner's request for parole, rather than a rejection resting solely on the nature of the offense or on apprehension of risk."

“The competent authority must explain how releasing the convict on parole would actually affect the security of the State or public order, which are the identifiable narrower circles. Mere conjecture or apprehension is not sufficient,” it further added.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC in a 2018 FIR . On January 16, 2025, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 15 lakh.

He sought eight weeks' parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. His son has been certified as having 50% disability due to DMD, a progressive genetic disorder, and he submitted that no one else could look after the child.

On May 21, 2026, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, rejected the request, relying on the police report. The order said that if released, the petitioner might commit an offence or abscond. The record showed two grounds for the refusal, the petitioner was serving a sentence for a heinous offence and he was an accused in a 2024 FIR under the NDPS Act, in which production warrants had been issued.

The Court said judicial review of a parole refusal is limited. It does not substitute its own assessment for that of the authority, but may intervene where the decision is arbitrary or perverse, rests on irrelevant considerations, ignores material evidence; falls outside the statutory framework.

The judgment traced the history of punishment, drawing on Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. It described the shift from public spectacles of bodily punishment to the modern prison and its regime of surveillance and isolation. The Court noted that the recognition that unbroken confinement may produce obedience without reform led to the movement for prison reform, of which parole is the most prominent product.

"Once the offender was seen as a person to be corrected, and no longer as a body to be destroyed, the search began for a penalty suited to that purpose. The idea of the prison emerged from this search, and, within a short span of time, detention became the essential form of punishment, displacing the scaffold, the pillory and the gallows. Yet the prison system did not emerge without criticism. The reformers who had envisaged penalties that were visible, proportionate and publicly intelligible found the new institution at odds with their design," the bench observed.

Humanising Confinement 

"If prisons were meant to correct, it could not do so merely by isolating and disciplining the offender; it had to prepare him for life beyond the walls. Reformers therefore sought to humanize confinement through inmate classification, education, the imparting of ethics, values, and morals, and the gradual relaxation of restrictions, so that a sentence would end in a return to society and not in permanent exclusion. Measures for the conditional and temporary release of prisoners, of which parole is the most prominent, are the product of this reformative impulse: they open the closed system of the prison, in a controlled manner, to the world outside," said the bench.

It also referred to the origins of parole in the ticket-of-leave system and the Elmira Reformatory.

The Court pointed out that, except for death sentences and life sentences expressly directed to run till the end of natural life, most convicts will one day return to society. It described parole as “the humane face of the reformative movement,” which converts punishment into an opportunity for reintegration. Using an analogy, it said some relationships are like a cactus and need little watering, but prolonged absence can wither even a resilient cactus.

"The paramount question sociologists struggle with while undergoing their quest to convince the Executive is 'how to condition the prisoner'? Every prisoner must be rehabilitated to ensure their dignified return to the community, with consistent behavior that never puts them back under surveillance inside the Panopticon. A few relationships are like a cactus and do not require frequent watering, but a sufficiently long oblivion brings about the 'Out of sight, out of mind' phenomenon, which can wither even a resilient cactus," the Court said.

The Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents including Sunil Fulchand Shah, Poonam Lata, Maru Ram, Lal Singh and Nilofer Nisha. It also invoked the “three concentric circles” test from Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar: law and order is the widest circle, public order the narrower one, and security of the State the smallest.

In the light of the above, the Court held that a refusal must be supported by objective material showing a legally relevant risk. An ordinary breach of law and order, falling in the outermost circle, does not by itself justify denying parole.

On the son's condition, the Court referred to medical literature describing DMD as a progressive disorder that leads to, loss of the ability to walk; respiratory and cardiac complications and reduced life expectancy.

It noted that managing the disease depends on early diagnosis, multidisciplinary care and timely treatment, all of which require a parent who takes the child to appointments and makes decisions on his behalf. The Court also referred to the realities of healthcare in the region, observing that most hospitals depend on attendants. It noted that, in that context, the absence of an attendant has been likened to driving in the hills at night without headlights.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's order in Aasif v. State of UP (2024), where parole was granted so the convict could arrange a kidney transplant for his wife, as recognising a family member's medical condition as a ground for parole.

The Court found that the impugned order, did not consider the disability certificate; and did not examine whether no other caregiver was available, also did not weigh the child's needs against the apprehended risk.

Ground Realities Of Medical Care In India

The court said that, "The medical care is required to be weighed against the ground realities of healthcare in this region of India, and not against what a well-equipped hospital would ideally provide. The Indian healthcare scenario has been described as a spectrum of contrasts. At one end are modern, high-technology hospitals where there is no need for any attendants, but these serve mostly the well-off patients, whereas in the majority of the hospitals, the absence of attendants is comparable to night driving in hills without headlights. Thus, there is a strong case for the requirement of attendants for the person under medical needs, depending upon the hospital, ailments, and the paramedical staff."

The Court set aside the order and directed the authorities to release the petitioner on parole for eight weeks within seven working days of the order being uploaded. Release is subject to a personal bond and one surety, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, and the following conditions:

Mr. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the Respondent.