Full Bench Order On Extension of Parole In Light of COVID19 Applies To Both Parole Granted By Jail And By The Court: Delhi HC [Read Order]
Delhi High Court has clarified that no distinction can be created between prisoners who were released on parole by the jail authorities and those who were granted parole by the court, for availing the benefits of the extension order passed by the Full Bench of the court. The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that if such a distinction is created then the...
Delhi High Court has clarified that no distinction can be created between prisoners who were released on parole by the jail authorities and those who were granted parole by the court, for availing the benefits of the extension order passed by the Full Bench of the court.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that if such a distinction is created then the entire exercise of decongesting prisons, undertaken in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, would be rendered futile.
The order has come in a plea moved by a prisoner seeking extension of his parole which was granted by the jail authorities and not by the court.
The Petitioner placed reliance on the multiple orders of the Full Bench of this court in a suo moto matter whereby all the interim bails, parole, and furlough granted to prisoners have been extended till October 31 in light of the ongoing pandemic.
Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr Akshay Bhandari argued that the very reason for extension of interim orders by the Full Bench, convicts such as the Petitioner, who were granted parole not by court but by the jail administration, meaning thereby whose cases merited grant of parole without need for approaching court, should not be put to a disadvantage; and the parole so granted should also be extended till 31.10.2020.
Mr Bhandari further submitted that any distinction drawn between those who were granted parole by court orders and those who were granted parole by orders of the jail administration would be a facetious distinction and would be untenable in law on considerations of equity, fair-play and justice; apart from the fact that such interpretation would pose a huge health hazard to those returning to prison as also to inmates who are now in jail.
Why noting that for availing the benefits of the Full Bench's order the question of whether the parole was granted by the jail is irrelevant, the court observed that:
'Furthermore, matters are escalated to this court by filing petitions only if a person is aggrieved by the action or inaction on the part of the jail administration; but, if an inmate gets relief from the jail administration, he should not be put to a disadvantage merely because there was no occasion for him to seek relief from this court or from any court subordinate to it.'
The court further highlighted that it would be anathema to the concept of parity if a person is declined extension of an order of parole, furlough or emergency parole merely because he got that relief from the jail administration and not from the court.
Case Title: Pradeep v. State of Delhi
[Read Order]