The High Court of Delhi has granted a 30-day parole to Mahender Rathore, a convict currently incarcerated at Central Jail No. 08, Tihar, to enable him to engage legal counsel of his choice for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India. In a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental right of a prisoner to pursue legal remedies, Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the rejection order issued by the Home Department of the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, which had denied the request on the grounds that the petitioner, belonging to an economically weaker section, could rely on the free legal aid services provided within the prison system.

The petitioner had sought temporary release following the High Court’s decision on August 5, 2026, which upheld his conviction and sentence in connection with a 2012 criminal case registered at the Shalimar Bagh Police Station. In that matter, the petitioner was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for offenses under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and three years for offenses under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the terms ordered to run concurrently. Seeking to contest this outcome, Rathore applied for parole in August 2026 to arrange the necessary financial resources and professional legal representation to challenge the judgment before the apex court.

The Delhi government’s initial refusal rested on the assertion that inmates lacking financial means are entitled to free legal services, thereby negating the necessity for parole to engage external counsel. However, the High Court’s intervention clarifies that the availability of institutional legal aid does not supersede a convict’s right to seek private legal counsel for specialized litigation before the Supreme Court.

Judicial Reasoning on Parole Rights

The decision heavily relied upon Rule 1208(viii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which explicitly identifies the filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court as a legitimate ground for granting parole. Justice Pushkarna emphasized that the provision is designed to ensure that the process of justice is not impeded by the circumstances of incarceration. The court underscored that a person’s status as an indigent litigant does not strip them of the right to choose their own advocate or to manage their case in a manner they deem most effective for their defense.

During the proceedings, the bench drew parallels to previous judicial precedents, including the cases of Bijender Versus State of NCT of Delhi and Neeraj Bhatt v. State (NCT of Delhi) . These rulings established that the right to challenge a conviction before the nation’s highest court is a "valuable right" that cannot be compromised by the prison administration. As the High Court noted in its current order: “Merely because legal aid counsel is available, the same is no ground to deny the valuable right to the petitioner with regard to engaging some counsel for the purpose of filing SLP challenging the judgment of this Court upholding his conviction and sentence.”

The court’s reasoning clarifies that while the prison administration plays a critical role in facilitating legal aid for those who cannot afford it, that system exists as an additional support mechanism rather than a restrictive barrier to seeking independent legal assistance. By affirming that the pursuit of a legal remedy before the Supreme Court is an essential entitlement, the High Court has reaffirmed that the burden of proving innocence or challenging an adverse verdict requires a degree of agency that, in appropriate circumstances, necessitates temporary release from custody.

Conditions of Release and Oversight

To ensure the integrity of the parole process and the petitioner’s return to custody, the court imposed a comprehensive set of conditions. Rathore is required to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 along with a surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. Furthermore, the petitioner must strictly adhere to a residency requirement, providing the specific address where he will reside throughout the 30-day period.

Public safety and compliance are further maintained through a mandatory reporting system. The petitioner is obligated to present himself at the jurisdictional Station House Officer (SHO) every Sunday at 10:00 AM, ensuring that local law enforcement remains updated on his status. Additionally, he must ensure that his mobile phone remains operational at all times and that both the jail authorities and the SHO are kept apprised of any changes to his contact details.

The court has also mandated specific reporting obligations upon the completion of the parole. At the time of his release, the Jail Superintendent is tasked with informing the petitioner in writing of the exact date and time by which he is required to surrender. Upon his return to custody, the petitioner must provide a copy of the filed SLP to the Jail Superintendent to prove that the parole was utilized for its intended purpose, and a copy must also be placed on the record of the High Court.

This ruling underscores the evolving nature of prison jurisprudence in India, where the balance between maintaining security and upholding individual rights continues to lean toward the protection of legal access. By allowing the petitioner to navigate the complex appellate process, the court has signaled that the constitutional right to appeal remains an active, enforceable privilege for all incarcerated individuals, regardless of their financial or social standing. The matter now rests on the petitioner's ability to utilize the granted period effectively before he is scheduled to surrender back to Tihar Jail.