Competent authorities must record specific reasons for rejection, including date and nature of any misconduct. Distinguish between major and minor punishments, ensuring compliance with procedural approvals. Consider entire jail conduct history, including prior furlough/parole compliance, before deciding.
Case Note
Headnote:
Parole — Rejection of parole application — Mechanical orders — Requirement of reasoned decision — Reformative purpose of parole — Delhi High Court quashes arbitrary rejection order and grants parole to life convict where jail conduct has been satisfactory for several years — Directions issued to ensure fair and transparent decision-making in future parole/furlough cases.
Case Title:
Kanta Prasad v. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P. (CRL.) 2995/2025, decided on 16 October 2025
Court:
Delhi High Court
Bench:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Citation:
Unreported (as of 2025); available on the Delhi High Court website.
Facts:
-
The petitioner, a life convict serving a sentence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, sought parole for one month to reconnect with family and reintegrate into society.
-
His application was rejected on 19 August 2025 on the ground of “unsatisfactory overall jail conduct.”
-
The record showed only two minor punishments from 2018–2019, with no adverse record since.
-
The petitioner had previously been granted furlough and parole on multiple occasions without any misuse of liberty.
Issues:
-
Whether the rejection of parole solely on the basis of stale, minor punishments is sustainable.
-
Whether parole rejection orders must be reasoned and supported by material on record.
-
What guidelines must govern parole and furlough decisions to ensure fairness.
Held:
-
The rejection order was “manifestly arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law.”
-
Rule 1210 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 makes parole contingent on recent conduct and compliance with previous releases, not on outdated minor punishments.
-
The petitioner’s satisfactory conduct over the last six years and compliance with all prior parole/furlough conditions entitled him to relief.
-
Parole serves a reformative purpose, enabling convicts to maintain social ties and prepare for reintegration.
-
Authorities must avoid mechanical orders and give clear, reasoned decisions.
Directions Issued:
-
Competent authorities must record specific reasons for rejection, including date and nature of any misconduct.
-
Distinguish between major and minor punishments, ensuring compliance with procedural approvals.
-
Consider entire jail conduct history, including prior furlough/parole compliance, before deciding.
-
Circulate this judgment to all Jail Superintendents and the Home Department for compliance.
Decision:
-
Rejection order quashed.
-
Petitioner granted parole for four weeks subject to conditions including bond, weekly reporting, verified residence, and surrender after expiry.
Significance:
This judgment reinforces the reformative and rehabilitative nature of parole, emphasizing procedural fairness, reasoned orders, and accountability. It aims to curb a recurring pattern of arbitrary parole denials and protect the rights of prisoners while maintaining public order.
End Notes — Case Law Cited:
-
Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 409 — Parole is not a suspension of sentence but a conditional release.
-
Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55 — Parole aims at reformation and social reintegration of prisoners.
-
State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 — Rejection of parole must be based on relevant considerations.
-
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3948 — Authorities cannot act mechanically; reasoned orders are essential.
-
Rakesh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4429 — Past good conduct and compliance are relevant factors in parole decisions.
Download PDF of Kanta Prasad v. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P. (CRL.) 2995/2025, decided on 16 October 2025 Kanta Prasad vs State of NCT of Delhi