SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1501

P.N.DESHMUKH, MANISH PITALE, PUSHPA V.GANEDIWALA
Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sunil V. Manohar, Adv., Adwait S. Manohar, Adv., Sonali Khobragade, Adv., S.Y. Deopujari, Adv., M.J. Khan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Parole is not a mere administrative decision; it is a limited legal right subject to Rules of 1959 and Rule 1(A) objectives [4000605130023] - Proviso to Rule 19(2) ( introduced 16.04.2018) violates Articles 14 and 21 and is ultra vires and struck down [4000605130041] - The larger Bench was requested to decide whether parole is a right or concession and whether proviso to Rule 19(2) violates Articles 14 and 21 (questions framed) [4000605130001][4000605130002] - The Court references prior judgments discussing non-arbitrariness, dignity, and the objective of parole under Rule 1(A) [4000605130018][4000605130019] - The petition was allowed; proviso struck down; matter referred to appropriate Bench for disposal [4000605130042]

What is the core question: Is parole a right or a concession and is proviso to Rule 19(2) violative of Articles 14 and 21?


JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

By order dated 14.03.2019, a Division Bench of this Court framed two questions pertaining to the nature of right of grant of parole to a convicted accused and as to whether proviso introduced to Rule 19(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The reference was occasioned because the said Division Bench of this Court found that validity of such a proviso upheld by an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court was required to be reconsidered, in the light of specific contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also because certain new and distinguishing circumstances had arisen after the said earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bathulwar .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2014) 2 BCR(Cri) 544.

2. The specific questions referred to the larger Bench read as follows:-

    (i) Whether parole is a right or a concession offered by the State or a mere administrative decision of the State dictated by its administrative policy or a special right of a prisoner in sp

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                    whatsapp-icon Back to top