In a significant ruling on 16 October 2025, the Delhi High Court set aside a government order that had denied parole to a life convict and issued strong directions to authorities to ensure fair and reasoned decisions in all parole cases.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, came in a petition filed by Kanta Prasad, who is currently serving a life sentence for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has been in custody for nearly 15 years.
Background of the Case
Kanta Prasad had applied for parole for one month to re-establish social ties with his family and prepare for eventual reintegration into society. However, his application was rejected on 19 August 2025 by the competent authority, citing “unsatisfactory overall jail conduct.”
Challenging this decision, Prasad approached the High Court, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary and mechanical. He highlighted that:
- He has undergone about 15 years of incarceration.
- His jail conduct in recent years has been satisfactory.
- He has previously been granted parole and furlough multiple times without ever violating conditions.
The State also conceded that the rejection order relied only on old punishments from 2018–2019 and may not justify denial of parole now.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the last jail punishments against Prasad were minor — a warning and stoppage of mulaqat (visits) for one week — and occurred more than six years ago. Since then, his conduct has been clean, and he has surrendered on time after every furlough or parole.
Referring to Rule 1210 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the Court explained that parole can be granted if:
- The convict has served at least one year in prison,
- Their conduct has been good in the past one to two years,
- They have not violated parole conditions in the past,
- There is a sufficient gap since the last parole.
Justice Sharma remarked that the rejection order was “manifestly arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in law” as it failed to consider the actual record and relied on stale conduct history.
Parole Granted with Conditions
Setting aside the government’s rejection order, the Court granted parole for four weeks subject to conditions, including:
- Furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety.
- Reporting to the local police station every Sunday.
- Sharing an active phone number with authorities.
- Residing at the verified address.
- Surrendering immediately after the parole period ends.
Systemic Directions to Authorities
Noting a “recurring pattern” of similar cases, the Court issued strong directions to the competent authorities:
- Give clear reasons for rejection — specifying the exact misconduct or adverse conduct with dates.
- Distinguish between major and minor punishments and check if they were approved by the District & Sessions Judge.
- Consider the entire jail history, including past compliance with parole and furlough, before rejecting applications.
Justice Sharma emphasized that parole is a reformative tool, not a privilege, and decisions must reflect objectivity and fairness. The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be sent to all Jail Superintendents in Delhi and the Home Department for compliance.
Why This Matters
This judgment reinforces that parole decisions must not be taken casually. It upholds the reformative purpose of imprisonment and protects the rights of convicts who have demonstrated good conduct. It also signals a push towards greater accountability in prison administration.