Delhi High Court Condemns Writ Petitions for Parole Applications, Advocates Direct Approach to Authorities

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court conveyed its dissatisfaction with the trend of submitting writ petitions to seek parole, rather than approaching the appropriate authorities. The observation was made by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, a sole judge on August 1, during the hearing of a case involving a man charged with offenses under Indian Penal Code sections 376(2)(g) (gang rape), 328 (causing hurt using poison, etc, with intent to commit an offense), and 34 (common intention) in a FIR registered in 2008.

The individual had requested a "subsequent period of temporary release for a fortnight" and/or the approval of parole for a duration of 30 days. Furlough denotes a short-term release from confinement, subject to conditions, typically offered during extended imprisonment to alleviate its repetitiveness. Parole, on the other hand, is feasible for shorter sentences, also comes with conditions, and is granted for a specific purpose.

The petitioner presented that he was given furlough on June 23, and according to the order, he was obligated to return by August 1. While on furlough, he underwent medical treatment for his health issues and has an upcoming surgery scheduled for August 5 at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.

The petitioner's lawyer mentioned that on July 27, his client submitted an application to request a second period of temporary release for two weeks, or alternatively, the approval of parole for a 30-day duration.

The counsel representing the prosecution noted that the trend of submitting a writ petition before the High Court to secure furlough is increasing, and the petitioner, rather than seeking assistance from the appropriate authorities promptly, file the writ petition at the last minute.

Following this, Justice Sharma remarked that this court disapproves of the practice of submitting a writ petition to seek parole authorization rather than approaching the appropriate authorities. Furlough was granted on August 1, 2023, and the petitioner submitted an application for an extension only on July 27, 2023, and subsequently lodged the petition with this court as the furlough was about to conclude. He discerns no merit in the petition, thus it is dismissed.

Nonetheless, Justice Sharma stated that given the surgery's scheduled date of August 5, the prison superintendent will "guarantee the petitioner's transportation to the hospital and oversee the surgical procedure in accordance with medical recommendations." Furthermore, Justice Sharma included that in the interim, the request dated July 27 for the approval of a subsequent period of temporary release should be addressed by the authorized body within three days.