In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the state for its selective approach in granting parole, emphasizing that such practices are "highly inequitable." Justice Harpreet Singh Brar underscored that liberty is a fundamental right cherished by all, and for convicts serving life sentences, it becomes their most "precious possession." The court asserted that the state must not assume that all convicts, upon release, will seek vengeance against their prosecutors. Instead, decisions regarding premature release should consider factors such as the convict's conduct in prison, mental state, severity of the offense, social background, and behavior during previous paroles.
The case in question involved petitioner Pawar Kumar, who was serving a life sentence. Kumar's application for premature release was deferred by the state on the grounds that he was involved in multiple cases. However, it was highlighted that out of the 12 cases against him, he had been acquitted in eight and was on bail in three others. Kumar's counsel argued that according to the state's April 2002 policy on premature release, there was no provision for deferring a convict's case based on pending cases, especially when acquittals and bails were prevalent.
Justice Brar emphasized that the state's policy on premature release should be uniformly applicable to all convicts, as it directly impacts their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court stated that once a convict meets the eligibility criteria for premature release, the state cannot arbitrarily deny this concession without providing valid reasons. The practice of "cherry-picking" beneficiaries not only violates the principles of fairness but also undermines the convict's right to equality and liberty.
The court further highlighted the importance of social justice, quoting Justice Krishna Iyer: "Social Justice is the signature tune of our Constitution, and the little man in peril of losing his liberty is the consumer of Social Justice." This reinforces the notion that the justice system must be compassionate and equitable, ensuring that convicts are treated with dignity and fairness.
This ruling comes in the backdrop of several instances where the state's approach to granting parole has been questioned. In previous cases, the High Court has consistently maintained that parole should not be denied on vague or unsubstantiated grounds. For instance, in a 2021 judgment, the court granted parole to a murder convict, emphasizing that parole is a privilege granted by the state and cannot be withheld for ambiguous reasons. The court noted that while parole is not an absolute right, once eligibility conditions are fulfilled, it can only be denied based on concrete evidence suggesting that the convict's release would endanger state security or public order.
Moreover, the court has recognized the significance of family ties in the rehabilitation process. In a 2022 ruling, it was asserted that meeting one's family is a fundamental facet of the right to life, making it a valid ground for granting parole. The court criticized the authorities for denying parole based on unfounded apprehensions, stating that such decisions must be rooted in tangible evidence rather than conjecture.
The High Court has also addressed concerns regarding the misuse of parole provisions. In cases where influential individuals received repeated paroles, the court questioned the state's rationale and emphasized the need for a transparent and unbiased system. The judiciary has called for the development of digital applications to process parole and furlough requests efficiently, ensuring that decisions are made based on merit and without favoritism.
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's recent ruling serves as a stern reminder to the state to uphold the principles of fairness and equality in its parole practices. By condemning the selective granting of parole, the court reinforces the idea that every convict, irrespective of their background, deserves a fair assessment of their eligibility for release, rooted in justice and humanity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.