The Bombay High Court, in a scathing judgment, condemned the arbitrary actions of the prison authorities and emphasized that established legal precedents cannot be disregarded under any circumstances. The court imposed a personal cost of ₹25,000 on the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison for rejecting a convict’s parole application without valid legal grounds.
Delivering the judgment, the division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande criticized the prison officials’ disregard for previous rulings and failure to comply with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shrihari Rajlingam Guntuka, a convict at Nashik Road Central Prison, had sought parole on September 6, 2024, to attend to his wife, who required urgent uterine surgery. Under Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules, serious illness of a spouse is a recognized ground for parole.
However, his application was rejected on September 30, 2024, citing a state circular from February 10, 2022, which mandates a one-and-a-half-year gap between successive parole or furlough leaves. The authorities noted that the petitioner had returned from a previous furlough leave only 21 days prior, making him ineligible under the circular.
Court’s Observations
The High Court strongly condemned the rejection, noting that the prison authorities had failed to adhere to earlier legal rulings on the matter. The court highlighted that a similar provision in the rules was previously deemed “manifestly arbitrary” by a Full Bench in the case of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division (2019). The provision, which earlier imposed a one-year waiting period for parole, had been invalidated for being contrary to the objectives of the furlough and parole rules.
Quoting the Full Bench decision, the court stated:
“A contingency like serious illness of a near relation or a natural calamity is unforeseen, and it is unreasonable to impose a waiting period in such cases.”
Despite the clarity of law, the prison authorities continued to reject parole applications, demonstrating what the court called a “deaf ear” to judicial pronouncements.
Rebuke and Directions
The bench criticized the prison authorities for assuming jurisdiction they do not possess and disregarding legal precedents. Justice Dangre remarked:
“When the law is laid down by this Court, it is equally applicable to all jurisdictions across Maharashtra. Disregarding judicial rulings cannot be excused as administrative oversight.”
In response to the arbitrary actions, the court directed the prison superintendent to forward the petitioner’s parole application to the competent authority within a week. The bench also instructed the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department to circulate the judgment to all concerned authorities to prevent future violations.
Imposition of Costs
Holding the prison authorities accountable for their actions, the court imposed a ₹25,000 personal cost on the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison. This amount is to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks. The court also directed the competent authority to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim and decide on the parole application within a week.
