Delhi High Court Denies Custody Parole to UAPA Undertrial, Cites Gravity of Charges and Lack of Medical Emergency

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea for two weeks of custody parole filed by Mohamed Ali Jinnah, an undertrial accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ( UAPA ). Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the desire to console ailing family members, while understandable, does not meet the "emergent or exceptional" criteria required for parole, especially given the serious nature of the charges related to national security.

The court upheld a trial court order from October 18, 2025, which had rejected Jinnah's application after finding that his family members were not suffering from any life-threatening conditions.

Background of the Case

Mohamed Ali Jinnah has been in judicial custody since September 22, 2022, in connection with a case filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He is an alleged National Executive Council (NEC) member of the banned organization, the Popular Front of India (PFI). The NIA has charged him with serious offences, including criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity between different groups, and various sections of the UAPA related to funding and supporting terrorist activities.

Jinnah sought custody parole to visit his family, stating his 65-year-old mother suffers from Papillary Carcinoma of the Thyroid, his 70-year-old father has a history of stroke, and his brother is also under medical care. He argued that as the elder son, he has a duty to provide emotional and logistical support to his family.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Submissions:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court had overlooked the humanitarian aspect of the case. It was contended that the ailments, particularly his mother's cancer diagnosis, constituted a "serious illness" under Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 . The plea emphasized that denying him the right to visit his family, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), would cause deep emotional trauma and amount to an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental rights.

NIA's Opposition:

The Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA vehemently opposed the petition, highlighting the gravity of the charges. The prosecutor argued that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to channel funds for unlawful activities and propagate a divisive ideology against the Government of India. It was submitted that the Delhi Prison Rules permit parole only in exceptional circumstances like "serious illness or death," which was not the case here, as a verification report confirmed that the family members were receiving adequate medical care for manageable conditions. The NIA stressed that offences under UAPA directly affect national security and a fit case for parole had not been made out.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

Justice Dudeja, in his order, acknowledged that prisoners retain their fundamental rights under Article 21, including the right to observe family duties. However, he clarified that these rights are subject to lawful restrictions necessary for the administration of justice.

The court centered its decision on the interpretation of Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 , which governs custody parole. This rule permits temporary release for specific eventualities such as the death, marriage, or "serious illness" of a family member.

> The court observed, "The purpose of custody parole is to allow a prisoner to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations... It is a temporary measure, humane in character, that ensures a balance between the interests of justice and human dignity."

However, upon reviewing the medical documents, the High Court concurred with the trial court's assessment. It noted that while Jinnah's mother had been diagnosed with cancer, no emergency surgery was scheduled, and the conditions of his family members were not life-threatening.

> Emphasizing the gravity of the charges, the judgment stated, "This Court also notes that the petitioner is facing trial for offences under the UAPA , where the allegations involve conspiracy and unlawful activities affecting national integrity. While the presumption of innocence must operate until conviction, the gravity of the charges cannot be ignored in the exercise of discretionary powers relating to parole."

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish any emergent or exceptional ground that would warrant the grant of custody parole under the established rules. Finding no "infirmity" in the trial court's order, the petition was dismissed. The decision underscores the high threshold undertrials accused of serious national security offences must meet to secure temporary release on humanitarian grounds.