Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal, a life convict undergoing sentence for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with other offences, was lodged in Nagpur Central Prison. He was granted emergency parole in June 2018 for his relative's marriage and surrendered on 12 July 2018. In August 2018, he applied for regular parole on the ground that his wife Mayadevi was critically ill and required his presence for treatment decisions. The verification report from the Superintendent of Police confirmed the seriousness of her illness and was favourable. However, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the application on 14 September 2018 solely on the ground of Rule 19(2) of the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959, as amended by notification dated 16 April 2018, which imposes a mandatory one-year gap between two paroles. The petitioner challenged the vires of Rule 19(2) as unconstitutional. The court examined the nature of parole, holding that it is a right under Article 21 and not a privilege. It found that Rule 19(2) creates an unreasonable classification between prisoners who availed emergency parole and those who did not, and the mandatory waiting period is arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Articles 14 and 21. The court struck down Rule 19(2) as ultra vires and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's parole application on merits within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Parole - Right to Life - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Parole is a right emanating from Article 21, not a mere privilege; it serves the purpose of reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. The court held that parole is a part of the right to life and must be liberally construed. (Paras 6-8) B) Prison Law - Parole Rules - Rule 19(2) of Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 - Mandatory Waiting Period - The amended Rule 19(2) imposes a blanket one-year gap between two paroles, without any exception for genuine emergencies. The court held that such a rigid provision is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 and Article 21. (Paras 9-15) C) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Classification - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Rule 19(2) creates an irrational classification between prisoners who availed emergency parole and those who did not, by treating them alike for the purpose of the waiting period. The court held that the classification has no nexus with the object of the rule and is thus unconstitutional. (Paras 16-20) D) Prison Law - Parole - Interpretation - The court held that parole rules must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of reformation and rehabilitation, and not as a penal provision. The mandatory bar under Rule 19(2) defeats this object. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 19(2) of the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959, as amended by notification dated 16th April, 2018, which imposes a mandatory one-year gap between two paroles, is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Prisons Act, 1894.
Final Decision
Rule 19(2) of the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959, as amended by notification dated 16th April, 2018, is declared ultra vires and struck down. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's parole application on its own merits within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Parole is a right under Article 21
- not a privilege
- Rule 19(2) creates unreasonable classification between prisoners who availed emergency parole and those who did not
- mandatory waiting period of one year is arbitrary and disproportionate
- parole rules must be construed liberally to achieve reformation and rehabilitation.
