Rajasthan High Court: Parole Plea Must Be Judged by Rules Existing at Time of Conviction, Not Stricter New Rules

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has directed prison authorities to reconsider a convict's parole application under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, instead of the newer, more stringent Rules of 2021. Justice Vijay Bishnoi emphasized that rules existing at the time of conviction should generally govern parole applications, setting aside a committee decision that retrospectively applied the 2021 Rules.

Background of the Parole Plea

The petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced on April 25, 2018, for offences including those under Sections 370(4) (trafficking), 342 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 376(2)(D)(F) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, sought a 20-day parole. His grievance arose when the respondents failed to take a decision on his parole application.

The State, in its reply, stated that the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, in its meeting on June 20, 2023, had rejected the petitioner's parole application. The rejection was based on the ground that he was not entitled to parole under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, which came into effect on June 30, 2021.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the conviction occurred in 2018, well before the 2021 Rules were enacted, his parole application should be considered under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. This argument hinged on the principle that new, potentially more restrictive rules, should not be applied retrospectively to affect rights that might have accrued under the older regime.

To support this contention, the petitioner's counsel relied on two key judicial precedents:

1. Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.467/2022, decided on 24.01.2023)

2. Anil Kumar @ Kaley v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No.381/2022, decided on 02.02.2023 at Jaipur Bench)

The Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), representing the State, initially opposed the writ petition. However, the AAG could not dispute the legal position, particularly as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh 's case (supra) , that the petitioner's parole application was indeed liable to be considered under the 1958 Rules.

Court's Directive and Rationale

Accepting the petitioner's arguments and noting the AAG's concession, Justice Vijay Bishnoi found merit in the plea. The court observed that the core issue was the applicability of parole rules – whether those in force at the time of conviction or those enacted later.

The judgment stated:

"Learned AAG has opposed this parole writ petition, however, he is not in position to dispute the fact that the application filed by the petitioner for releasing him on 20 days' parole is liable to be considered as per the provisions of the Rules of 1958 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh 's case (supra)."

Consequently, the High Court set aside the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur, dated June 20, 2023, which had refused parole to the petitioner based on the 2021 Rules.

Final Decision and Implications

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive:

"...the respondents are directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for releasing him on 20 days' parole afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1958, instead of the provisions of the Rules of 2021, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

This ruling reinforces the legal principle against the detrimental retrospective application of laws, particularly in matters concerning personal liberty such as parole. It ensures that prisoners' parole applications are assessed based on the legal framework that was in place at the time of their conviction, preventing prejudice from subsequently enacted, potentially more restrictive, regulations. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding fairness and due process in the administration of parole.