The Karnataka Government told the Karnataka High Court that that clause (n) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974, has been omitted.
Clause (n) is in respect of the cases of prisoners who are undergoing sentence in default of fine not preceded with substantive sentence. The court had earlier directed the state government to reconsider its decision denying emergency parole to prisoners under this category, while hearing the petition filed by Syed Shantaj and others.
Advocate Shaikh Saoud appearing for the petitioners had contended that "By denying parole to the petitioners it actually amounts to contempt of court of the order dated 23-03-2020 passed by the Supreme Court.
The court while asking the state to relook at its decision had said "Prima facie, it appears to us that the exclusion introduced by Clause (n) may not be consistent with the order of the Apex Court, issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, prima facie, it appears to us that many of the offences for which sentence in default of fine is not preceded with substantive sentence has nothing to do with the interest of the security of the State. The same may be offences arising out of private transactions or commercial transactions."
The court clarified that "In case of prisoners whose applications for parole were rejected relying upon the aforesaid clause (n), which is now deleted, it will be open for them to make fresh applications for parole, which shall be decided by the concerned authority empowered to grant parole as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the direction issued by the Apex Court on 23rd March 2020 in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.1/2020."