Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 13784
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
DHELURAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR No. 133 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandrakaditya Pandey
For the Respondents: N. K. Jaiswal
The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to timely and adequate medical treatment, requiring authorities to decide parole applications based on urgent medical grounds within a reasonable timeframe.
Headnote:The petitioner, a convicted prisoner, sought a writ of mandamus under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989, and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, requesting parole for 90 days to receive treatment for gangrene at a private hospital after losing faith in government facilities. The court found that the petitioner's application for parole had been forwarded to the competent authority but remained undecided despite the urgency of the medical condition, which included a previous toe amputation and the risk of further limb loss. The primary issue was whether the administrative inaction in deciding a parole application on medical grounds violates the fundamental right to life. The court reasoned that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to timely and adequate medical treatment. While noting that parole is not an absolute right, the court held that the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to decide such applications within a reasonable time, especially when founded on serious medical grounds. this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for grant of parole/leave strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks parole for urgent medical treatment for gangrene, alleging administrative inaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. analysis of the statutory framework for prisoner leave and judicial precedents on parole. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. the right to life necessitates a timely decision on medical parole applications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State.
2. Upon mention being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was treated as urgent and the prayer was allowed. The Registry was directed to list the matter in List–I (Supplementary List) after due notice to the office of the learned Advocate General.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 to forthwith consider and grant parole/leave to the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 , for a period of at least 90 days to enable treatment in a private hospital of his choice at his own expense.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole within 24 hours of the order, subject to reasonable conditions such as furnishing sureties, periodic reporting, and restriction to medical treatment purposes.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the inaction/pendency of the petitioner's parole application as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10.5 That, any other writs and direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently undergoing sentence and is suffering from a serious medical condition, namely gangrene. He was admitted to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital for treatment, where earlier one of his toes had already been amputated. Subsequently, the doctors informed him that the infection had further spread and that amputation of his legs might be required. Being apprehensive about the line of treatment and having lost faith in the government hospital, the petitioner expressed his desire to seek treatment from a private hospital of his choice.
5. In view of his deteriorating health condition, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of parole to enable him to obtain proper medical treatment in a private hospital. The said application was forwarded by the jail authorities to the learned District Magistrate for consideration. However, despite the urgency of the medical situation, no decision has been taken on the petitioner’s application and the same has been kept pending.
6. It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the inaction of the respondent authorities in not deciding the petitioner’s application for grant of parole/leave for medical treatment is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already undergone a substantial portion of the modified sentence of four years as affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court of India has been dismissed; thus, the conviction has attained finality. However, the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to proper and adequate medical treatment of one’s choice, and the petitioner, who is sufferin
