( 1 ) PETITIONER, a lifer ( to use jail jargon) now lodged in the Tihar jail, has moved this petition seeking her release on parole on the following grounds, namely;

A) that she is an old lady of 74 years and a patient of diabetes,

B) that her health is deteriorating as the food, which is being provided to her, is not diabetes oriented;

C) that she has a keen desire to meet her family members and last parole had been granted to her some 14 months before;

D) that she had applied to the Delhi Administration for being released on parole but no response has been received from it so far.

( 2 ) THE Delhi Administration has responded through counsel and contended that prayer of the petitioner had been considered and rejected on the following grounds:-

"the prisoner is a bride-burning case accused who was sentenced to death by the trial court but reprieved to life by the Supreme Court. Almost from the beginning she has been paroled regularly every year and mostly for 3 to 6 months at a time. Since 1989, she had two years and one month of parole, twice by the Delhi Government, and six times by the Hon ble Court. As the convict s medical condition is stable and. a laser operation has already been performed on her eyes, there is no reason for further parole. If the circumstances change, the competent authority may consider the case of convict afresh. "

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner has undergone a sentence of more than 7 years and she was paroled last on 20th May, 1994 by this Court on medical ground. It is significant that the Deputy Secretary (Home) has unequivocally stated in his affidavit dated 27. 10. 1995 that the petitioner s prayer for grant of parole had been recommended-by the jail superintendent and the Deputy Commissioner, South, West Distt, Delhi, had no objection for grant of parole to The petitioner from law and order point of view. He further stated in his affidavit that:-

"that the jail Medical Officer has reported that the convict is a case of Diabetes Mellitus. Due to this she has eye problem and severe vulritis (infection of the vulva ). Her latest blood sugar is 245 mg% (R ). Guru Nanak Eye Centre s doctor has not yet given any date of operation also since her sugar is not controlled it is not possible to perform operation at this stage. General condition of the patient is not satisfactory. That the Jail Medical Officer, in his latest report dated 4. 10. 95, has further stated that the convict Shakuntia Devi wife of Sri Niwas is a patient of Diabetes - Hypertension c- coronary ailing disease. For diminition of vision, instead of operation, she was treated c Laser technique. Her vision has improved after this. General condition of the patient is stable. Now operation is required at present. "

( 4 ) A few prepatory observations are necessary before we test the impugned order of the Delhi Administration on touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Under our Constitution, deprivation of personal liberty as penal policy is purposive because the imprisonment of the criminal is sanctioned as a measure of social defence and individual rehabilitation. The focus of interest in penology is the individual and the goal is salvaging him for society. Time and again the Apex Court has held that all aspects of criminal justice fall under the umbrella of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Further the Apex Court has sought to humanise prison administration to some extent through its various pronouncements and it has also laid great emphasis on the right of a prisoner to the integrity of his physical person and mental personality. The Apex Court views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a measure of social defence. This compassionate outlook is reflected in the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1579 Sunil