In a landmark judgment aimed at protecting the rights of impoverished inmates, the Rajasthan High Court has declared that conditions for granting parole, specifically the requirement of a monetary bond, must be determined after a thorough assessment of the prisoner's financial capacity. The court sternly observed that "poverty is not a crime" and rebuked authorities for their rigid and insensitive approach in demanding sureties from those who cannot afford them.
A Postcard Plea from Jodhpur Central Jail
The case reached the court through an unconventional means—a letter written on a postcard by Khartaram, a life convict imprisoned at Jodhpur Central Jail since 2014 in a murder case. The court treated this letter as a formal writ petition. The issue stemmed from his fourth regular parole grant. On September 29, 2025, the district parole committee approved a 40-day parole for Khartaram but attached a condition requiring him to submit two sureties of Rs 25,000 each. Described as financially weak and unable to afford legal assistance, Khartaram turned to the High Court for relief.
Systemic Indifference and a "Disturbing Pattern"
A division bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Farjand Ali discovered a troubling history. The court noted that Khartaram had been granted parole three times earlier, and on each occasion, the surety condition was imposed by the committee, only to be later waived by the High Court, allowing his release on a personal bond. The bench expressed strong disapproval that the same financially prohibitive condition was mechanically imposed for the fourth time.
Labeling this cycle of unnecessary litigation a "disturbing pattern," the judgment highlighted a deep-seated "institutional apathy" or systemic indifference within the authorities. The court emphasized that "parole is a reformative right; it cannot be turned into a means of discrimination between the rich and the poor." It added a powerful statement: "If a prisoner is poor and cannot furnish a surety, demanding a surety from him is similar to refusing parole. Parole cannot be a privilege reserved only for those with money."
Six Statewide Guidelines for a Humane System
To prevent such injustice in the future, the bench issued six comprehensive guidelines to be followed across Rajasthan in all parole cases. The core directive mandates that authorities must exercise their discretion "in a humane, rational, and constitutionally compliant manner." A key guideline clarifies that while a surety may ordinarily be sought for a first parole, the parole committee must conduct a due inquiry into the prisoner's financial status. If the prisoner is found to be indigent and unable to furnish the surety, the committee must waive the requirement even for the first parole.
The judgment, which was reserved on December 16, 2025, was formally pronounced on January 6. This ruling establishes a crucial precedent, ensuring that the right to parole is accessible to all prisoners as a tool for reformation and social integration, not just a privilege for the economically advantaged.
