Delhi High Court Grants Parole for Last Rites, Upholds Dignity Under Article 21

Delhi High Court Affirms Parole as Constitutional Right for Last Rites

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the humanitarian principles of parole jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has declared that the right to perform the last rites of a parent constitutes a fundamental religious and moral obligation. The court emphasized that refusal of parole in such circumstances would amount to a violation of a convict's right to dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Petition and Legal Framework

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking a writ of mandamus for emergency parole. Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over the case, Ajmer Singh alias Pinka v. The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjhawala, ultimately granting four weeks of parole to enable the convict to attend the "Tehravi" ceremony and perform the final rites for his deceased father.

Background and Conviction Details

The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 139/2018 at Police Station Kanjhawala under multiple sections:

Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 376 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 354B IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 66E of the IT Act

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner had served approximately one year, nine months, and fifteen days of imprisonment, excluding remission. His jail behavior was reported as "Satisfactory" in the Nominal Roll of 25.09.2025, and he had not availed any parole or furlough previously.

Humanitarian Grounds and State Objection

The petitioner's father passed away on 16.09.2025 due to a heart attack, a fact verified by the Investigating Officer. The final rites were scheduled for 26.09.2025. As the eldest son, the petitioner sought two months of emergency parole to fulfill his religious and familial duties. However, the State opposed this request, citing Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which limits parole to a maximum of four weeks in a single spell. The State acknowledged the verified death and scheduled rites but argued that the two-month request was unlawful under the statute.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Court observed that parole is not merely an administrative concession but an integral aspect of correctional jurisprudence aimed at maintaining family ties and social integration. It highlighted the humanitarian and reformist nature of parole in India, stating that denial in such cases would mechanically apply rules and defeat the purpose of parole.

The Court held: "The right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner's right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution."

While recognizing the severity of the petitioner's convictions, the Court warned against strict interpretation of prison rules that overlook genuine humanitarian grounds. It emphasized balancing punishment with constitutional rights, ultimately granting four weeks of parole to allow performance of last rites without compromising prison discipline.

Conditions of Parole

The Court directed the petitioner's release on parole for four weeks under stringent conditions:

Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of like amount
Residing at a disclosed address and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior intimation
Weekly reporting to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala
Keeping his mobile number operational at all times
Refraining from influencing witnesses or engaging in criminal activity
Surrendering immediately upon expiry of parole

Violation of any condition would result in immediate cancellation of parole. The writ petition was granted, reaffirming that humanitarian factors are essential to constitutional parole jurisprudence and that a convict's dignity under Article 21 persists even in prison.