It cannot be over-emphasized that prisoners also have basic legal rights which cannot be trampled upon with impunity by jail authorities or anyone else! In this context, it would certainly be in the fitness of things to point out that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohd Sheikh Noor Hussain vs State NCT of Delhi in W.P.(CRL) 979/2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 16.04.2025 has minced just no words whatsoever to state most unequivocally that:
Merely because (a prisoner) is confined to jail, (it) does not reduce his status to that of a chattel bereft of any basic fundamental human rights. In addition, the Delhi High Court also went a step ahead and most robustly urged the jail authorities to handle parole (temporary leaves from prison) requests by prisoners with more sensitivity. It also must be kept in mind that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna who authored this most pragmatic, progressive and pertinent judgment made these key observations while extending the four weeks of parole to a rape and murder convict who was serving a life imprisonment sentence of which he had already served 20 years in jail.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Mohd. Sheikh Noor Hussain, for release on Parole for four weeks in FIR No. 252/2002 under Section 302/376(2)(f) of the India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, in which he is undergoing the Life Sentence and has already spent more than 20 years in jail.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating and stating that:
It is submitted in the Petition that the Petitioner had applied for grant of Parole on 26.11.2024 vide dispatch No. 5998-99/2024 despite which his Application has not been decided. The Petitioner had sought the copy of his Parole Application from the Authority for annexing along with the Petition but his request was rejected. He has no other alternative efficacious remedy but to seek a Parole from this Court by way of the present Petition. A prayer is made that he may be granted Parole for four weeks. It is further submitted that the Parole/Furlough has been availed many a times by the Petitioner and he has never misused the liberty granted except during the Emergency Parole in COVID-19 period wherein he surrendered late. However, the delay in surrender was purely because he had no knowledge of the date of surrender. Thereafter also, he has been granted Parole by this Court in W.P.(Crl) No. 293/2024 wherein this ground of late surrender was considered and Parole was granted vide Order dated 29.01.2024.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 observing that:
It is further submitted that the Petitioner’s overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He has not received any punishment except one as mentioned above. He is presently working in jail as Safai Sahayak.

While elaborating further on the condition of the petitioner, the Bench reveals in para 4 mentioning that:
It is further submitted that his family comprises of his wife, who is working from home as a tailor and he has two daughters and two sons, who are all minor and school going. He belongs to poor strata of the society. He further submits that he would reside at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties and his family members or friends would stand as surety for him. In case, the Parole is granted by this Court, he undertakes to abide by all the terms. A prayer is, therefore, made for grant of Parole for a period of four weeks.

Further, the Bench then mentions in para 5 revealing that:
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that he is seeking Parole for maintaining social and family ties for which Parole may be granted.

On the other hand, the Bench then further discloses in para 6 stating that, Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Status Report along with the copy of the Order dated 15.04.2025 vide which the Application for Parole, has been rejected. Let the Status Report be taken on record.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 7 that:
Submissions heard and the record perused.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 8 that:
The most glaring aspect which emerges is that despite an Application for Parole being filed in November, 2024, it does not get decided within the mandated one month period but it takes a Writ Petition and a Notice by this Court for the Jail Authorities, to decide a Petition and that too in the most arbitrary way, only because of this present Writ Petition.

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 9 that:
Pertinently, the first ground of rejection is the late surrender of the Petitioner after the Emergency Parole. Pertinently, the earlier Application of the Petitioner had been rejected on the same ground, but the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its Order dated 29.01.2024 considered this ground and observed that the circumstances and family exigencies, cannot be overlooked while considering the Application while the balance of interest of Covid, as well as, the society has to be considered. This ground was not considered as valid for denying the Parole, which was granted vide Order dated 29.01.2024.

Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 10 propounding and holding most explicitly that:
Once, the Court has specifically observed that this is not a valid ground for denying Parole, the insistence to persist in making this as a ground of rejection of Parole every time compelling the Petitioner to come to the Court, is neither warranted nor appreciated. The Jail administration must be conscious and aware of the Orders being made by the Court and follow them scrupulously.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench while taking potshots at the jail authorities clearly expounds in para 11 observing that:
The second ground which has been given is that the conduct of the convict is not satisfactory. The Nominal Roll does not show any new unsatisfactory conduct. Pertinently it notes that the Petitioner had attempted suicide on 08.09.2022. The Jail Authorities must be aware and conscious that an attempt to suicide reflects a mental condition; rather it should have rung the alarm bell that the convict needs to maintain the social ties for his mental health. Instead of appreciating his mental condition, to treat the same as a crime and to issue a warning, reflects again the scant understanding of the Jail Administration regarding the plight of the Petitioner.

Most significantly, most fundamentally and so also most remarkably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
It cannot be overlooked that he has been in jail for more than 20 years; may be for a crime that he has committed but that does not denude him of his basic Right to Life. Merely because he is confined to jail, does not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic Fundamental Human Rights. It is high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrate a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters.

Most lamentably, the Bench then minces just no words to lament in para 13 pointing out most explicitly that:
In the end, it has been observed in the Rejection Order that the request for grant of Parole was made for repair of his house and for arranging funds but this was generic and did not attract exceptional condition to qualify as relief under Section 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Instead of merely terming it as generic, little more effort on the part of the Jail administration, to at least try to verify the reasons given by him, would have been more appreciable. Even otherwise, the Parole is granted to establish social ties, which at least should have weighed with the Jail Authorities, to consider his Application of Parole. It is indeed a very unhappy situation where time and again the Petitioner is being pushed to approach the Court, for grant of Parole.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then holds in para 14 directing that:
It is hereby directed that while considering the Parole/Furlough Applications, the same ground should not be repeatedly reiterated for rejection of Parole/Furlough Application. Once a judicial mind has been disclosed in any Order about the validity of any ground for Rejection or Non- Rejection of the Parole/Furlough Application, the same should be more judiciously and scrupulously adhered to by the Jail Authorities.

What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 15 stipulating succinctly that, Considering the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner be released on Parole for a period of four weeks, on the following terms and conditions:

1. The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
2. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of Parole.
3. The Petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police station, on which he can be contacted, if required. The said telephone number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the Petitioner.
4. The Petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address mentioned in the Petition.
5. Immediately upon the expiry of period of Parole, the Petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.
6. The period of Parole shall be counted from the day when the Petitioner is released from jail.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 16 of this notable judgment that:
The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

All told, we thus see that the Delhi High Court strikes the right chord to lay down clearly in no uncertain terms that prisoners are not chattels who are devoid of basic human rights. We thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made it abundantly clear to the jail authorities that they handle parole requests by prisoners with more sensitivity. We also further see that the Bench further directs the petitioner to be released on parole but subject to the fulfillment of certain terms and conditions as mentioned hereinabove. So it is definitely beyond a straw of doubt a very well-reasoned order which has to be certainly most unconditionally applauded for placing the basic legal rights of prisoners on the highest priority! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh