Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8541
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Dheluram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPCR No. 202 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shalvik Tiwari
For the Respondents: Soumya Rai
The right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides hyper-technical statutory requirements for medical parole, and the State's discretion in granting remission must be exercised reasonably and non-arbitrarily, particularly in cases of grave medical exigency.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to Health - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to life includes the right to health and access to adequate and timely medical treatment; a prisoner does not lose fundamental rights upon incarceration, and the State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure proper medical care, especially when prison infrastructure is inadequate. (Para 10)
(B) Medical Parole - Statutory Rules vs. Humanitarian Grounds - Rejection of a medical parole application on hyper-technical grounds, such as the absence of a specific statutory provision or failure to meet a mandatory waiting period, is arbitrary and illegal when the prisoner is facing a grave and life-threatening medical exigency. (Para 9, 13)
(C) Remission - Exercise of Discretion - While the power to grant remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. / Section 473 BNSS is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary manner and is subject to judicial review if based on irrelevant considerations. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's medical parole application on technical grounds violates the fundamental right to life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Mungeli (contained in letter dated 17.03.2026, ANNEXURE P/4) rejecting the petitioner's medical parole application, as being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10.2) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities. immediately release the petitioner on medical parole for a period of 90 days (or until his medical condition stabilizes, whichever is longer) to enable him to receive proper treatment at a private hospital of his choice at his own expense, subject to reasonable conditions such as furnishing sureties, periodic reporting to the local police station, and restriction of movement to the place of treatment and residence.
10.3) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, if this Hon'ble Court is not inclined to grant parole as prayed above, issue a writ in the of Mandamus directing the nature respondentauthorities to permit the petitioner to be treated at a private hospital of his choice at his own expense, under the supervision of jail authorities (such as by deputing jail staff for security), without releasing him on parole, so that he may receive necessary medical care while remaining in the constructive custody of the State.
10.4) Direct the respondent authorities to provide immediate medical attention to the petitioner within the jail premises pending the hearing of this petition, including proper wound care, hygiene management for incontinence, and treatment for bedsores.
10.5) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 05.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli in Sessions Case No. 435/1995 under Sections 148, 323/149 (three counts) and 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years, which conviction and sentence came to be partly modified by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 828/2002 vide judgment dated 20.09.2024 whereby the conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC was altered to Section 304 Part-I I IPC and the sentence was reduced to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment, and the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17525/2024 preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 13.12.2024. The petitioner is in custody and has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence i.e. about 2 years and 9 months out of the total 4 years and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Raipur; that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 68 years and during incarceration his health has severely deteriorated, inasmuch as he developed gangrene leading to amputation of his toe and thereafter amputation of his leg above the knee on 02.03.2026 at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, and continues to suffer from severe post-operative complications. Further, upon seeking medical parole, this Court in WPCR No. 133/2026 vide order dated 03.03.2026 directed the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s application by a reasoned order, however, despite the said direction, the District Magistrate, Mungeli has rejected the petitioner’s application vide impugned communication dated 17.03.2026 on hyper-technical and untenable grounds, namely absence of specific provision for medical parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Act, 1985 and non- completion of the stipulated period of three months from the previous leave, without appreciating the exceptional an
