Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arjun S/o Lakkappa Hurakannavar, a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), was serving his sentence at Central Prison, Kalaburagi. He filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Chief Superintendent of Central Prisons (respondent No.4) rejecting his request for parole for 90 days, and to direct the respondent to consider his request for parole in accordance with law. The respondent had rejected the application on the ground that Section 32A of the NDPS Act bars suspension, remission, or commutation of sentence. The petitioner argued that parole is not a remission or suspension of sentence but a temporary release for a specific purpose, and Section 32A does not bar parole. The State respondents opposed the petition, contending that Section 32A prohibits any form of release. The Court analyzed the distinction between parole and remission, noting that parole is a temporary release from custody for a specific purpose, while remission is a reduction in the sentence. The Court held that Section 32A of the NDPS Act bars remission, commutation, and suspension of sentence but does not bar parole. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for parole in accordance with the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, and pass appropriate orders within a specified period. The petition was disposed of with the above direction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole - Entitlement of convict under NDPS Act - Section 32A NDPS Act, 1985 - Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974 - The petitioner, convicted under the NDPS Act, sought parole for 90 days. The respondent rejected the application citing Section 32A which bars suspension, remission, or commutation of sentence. The Court held that parole is not a remission or suspension of sentence but a temporary release for a specific purpose, and Section 32A does not bar parole. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for parole in accordance with the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Parole - Distinction between parole and remission - Section 32A NDPS Act, 1985 - The Court clarified that parole is a temporary release from custody for a specific purpose, while remission is a reduction in the sentence. Section 32A bars remission, commutation, and suspension of sentence but does not bar parole. The Court relied on the principle that parole is governed by prison rules and is not a matter of right but a privilege subject to conditions. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is entitled to parole despite the bar under Section 32A of the NDPS Act?
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for parole in accordance with the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974, and pass appropriate orders within a specified period. The order dated 15.03.2023 is quashed.
Law Points
- Parole is not a remission or suspension of sentence
- Parole is a temporary release for a specific purpose
- Section 32A of NDPS Act does not bar parole
- Parole is governed by Prison Rules
- Not all convicts are entitled to parole as a matter of right
