Looking to the complex factual and legal issues involved in the matter, learned counsel Mr. Farzand Ali was requested to act as an Amicus Curiae for assisting the Court.

By way of this parole writ petition, the petitioner Khayali Devi w/o late Shri Devilal Menaria mother of the convict Bhanwarlal lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the case of her son, the convict Bhanwarlal for being sent to the Open Air Camp. It is asserted in the parole writ petition that the jail authorities have arbitrarily without following the procedure provided in the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 imposed unjustified jail punishment upon her son. The petitioner has also pleaded in the writ petition that the jail authorities are deliberately misusing their powers for oblique motives and spoil the record of the convicts who do not satisfy their illegal demands.

The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein there is no emphatic denial of the assertion made by the petitioner that the procedure provided under the Rules of 1972 was not followed before imposing jail penalty on the convict. It is only mentioned in the reply that while awarding jail penalty upon the convict, complete and transparent procedure was adopted. However, the details of the procedure adopted are not reflected in the reply. It is further mentioned in the reply that the last prisoner sent to the Open Air Camp had served 7 years 10 months and 15 days sentence with remission and the convict Bhanwarlal had also served 7 years 10 months and 15 days with remission as on 31.12.2014. As per Rule 6(a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter in short the Rules of 1972) the prisoners are entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp in the order of seniority calculated by the period of imprisonment suffered. It is further asserted in the reply that since the convict had earned a jail penalty within the preceding two years, therefore, as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 he is not entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp. As the reply was vague in particulars, the original record was summoned and has been produced by Mr. Narendra Kumar Swamy, Dy. Jailor, Kota.

Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Farzand Ali, Mr. K.K.Rawal, learned P.P. and perused the material available on record as well as the relevant Rules. In order to verify the probity of the rival assertions, the original jail record of the prisoner was summoned and perused with the assistance of Shri Farzand Ali Amicus Curiae.

Learned counsel Mr. Farzand Ali ably assisting the Court urged that the manner in which the authorities imposed jail penalty on the convict is totally arbitrary and illegal. He points that under Rule 1 of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 (hereinafter in short as Rules of 1951), 43 violations are enumerated as prison offences. The convict Bhanwarlal has been held guilty of infringing Sub-rule 43 of Rule 1 inasmuch as he allegedly did not attend the workshop. He submits that though Rule 3 of the Rules provides a distinction between minor and serious jail offences but no guideline has been provided in the Rules for categorization of the infringements enumerated in the Rules vis-à-vis the nature of the penalty to be inflicted i.e. minor or major. He contends that in the case at hand, the jail authorities imposed a punishment of forfeiture of remission for five days on the convict which as per Rule 5(2)(ii)(a) of the Rules of 1951 would be a major punishment. He contends that before imposing a major punishment on the convict, the authorities were required to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1951 which they failed to do.

Since a major punishment was imposed on the convict as per this Rule, the offence would be treated as falling in a serious offence and the names of the witnesses proving the offence are necessarily required to be recorded in the prescribed column