In a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental rights of prisoners, the Delhi High Court has observed that convicts cannot be denied their Right to Life, and that being in prison does not reduce them to mere property of the state. The Court made these remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by a convict serving a life sentence for murder and rape under Sections 302 and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the matter, allowed the parole plea and strongly criticized the delay by jail authorities in deciding the petitioner’s application.
“It cannot be overlooked that he has been in jail for more than 20 years; may be for a crime that he has committed but that does not denude him of his basic Right to Life. Merely because he is confined to jail, does not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic Fundamental Human Rights,” the Court said.
“It is high time that the Jail Authorities demonstrate a little more sensitivity in dealing with such matters.”
CASE BACKGROUND: LIFE CONVICT SEEKS PAROLE AFTER TWO DECADES
The petitioner, Mohd. Sheikh Noor Hussain, had applied for four weeks’ parole on November 26, 2024, but received no response from the authorities. Despite repeated follow-ups, his request was not acted upon, forcing him to approach the Court through a writ petition.
Represented by Advocate Mohd. Sheikh Noor and Advocate Zeeshan Diwan, the petitioner stated that his parole record was clean, except for a late surrender during the COVID-19 emergency parole period — a delay he attributed to lack of proper communication.
He further informed the Court that his wife is a tailor working from home, and he has four minor children who are currently in school. He assured the Court that his residence was fixed, and he would abide by all parole conditions, with family and friends willing to stand surety.
COURT SLAMS ARBITRARY REJECTIONS, UPHOLDS RIGHTS
The Court expressed serious concern over the routine delay in processing parole applications, particularly noting that jail authorities only acted after the filing of a writ petition.
“The most glaring aspect is that despite an Application for Parole being filed in November, 2024, it does not get decided within the mandated one month period but it takes a Writ Petition and a Notice for the Jail Authorities, to decide a Petition and that too in the most arbitrary way,” the Court remarked.
On the authorities’ repeated use of “late surrender” as a reason for rejection, Justice Krishna firmly stated:
“Once, the Court has specifically observed that this is not a valid ground for denying Parole, the insistence to persist in making this as a ground of rejection of Parole every time compelling the Petitioner to come to the Court, is neither warranted nor appreciated.”
The Court urged jail authorities to respect judicial observations and precedent, especially in matters involving fundamental rights and personal liberty.
CASE TITLE:
MOHD. SHEIKH NOOR HUSSAIN VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI
LEGAL REPRESENTATION:
- Petitioner: Advocate Sheikh Noor, Advocate Zeeshan Diwan
- Respondent (State): Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi; Advocates Mathew M. Philip, Sangeet Sibou, Aniket Kumar Singh
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
- Parole application delayed for over four months, in violation of standard norms.
- Court calls out “insensitive” conduct by jail authorities.
- Reiterates that prisoners retain basic human and constitutional rights, even after conviction.
- Warns against misuse of minor infractions to deny fundamental entitlements like parole.
