The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has affirmed that convicts sentenced to imprisonment for the duration of their natural biological life without the possibility of parole cannot be granted temporary release unless that specific condition is first judicially modified. In a ruling delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol, the Court underscored that administrative authorities remain bound by the explicit terms of a trial court’s sentencing order, making it impossible to grant parole without directly undermining the original mandate of the trial judge.

The petitioner, identified as Deepak, alias Deepu, had sought an eight-week release under the provisions of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 . Convicted in 2020 by an Additional Sessions Judge in Jind for a series of grave offenses, including murder and charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act , he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life without the benefit of parole . Despite having served over 11 years in custody, his plea for relief was denied by the District Magistrate, leading him to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India .

Challenges to the Sentencing Framework

In his petition, Deepak argued for his temporary release on personal grounds, citing the death of his mother, the incarceration of his father in a separate criminal matter, and the urgent need to support his sister’s academic aspirations as she prepared for the civil services examination. However, the High Court found that these domestic circumstances, while concerning, did not override the primary legal barrier: the specific nature of his sentencing order.

The Court reasoned that the trial judge’s decision to mandate life imprisonment without parole was a deliberate judicial choice, often employed as a substitute for the death penalty in cases falling just short of the " rarest of the rare " threshold. By setting such a condition, the trial court aimed to ensure that the punishment remained robust and proportionate to the heinousness of the crime. The High Court bench observed that permitting parole in the face of such a restriction would effectively bypass the sentencing judge's intent.

"The sentencing order had an explicit condition that the convict (Petitioner) shall have to undergo imprisonment for the whole of the biological life without parole ," the bench noted. "Granting parole shall amount to defying the trial Court’s reasoning, probably because of which the Death Sentence was not imposed in such a heinous offense."

Administrative Discretion and Judicial Oversight

The ruling reinforces the principle that parole is not an absolute, vested right of a prisoner but a privilege contingent upon both statutory eligibility and the specific legal constraints placed upon an individual’s term of incarceration. While the judiciary has historically supported " penal humanitarianism " to encourage rehabilitation and the maintenance of family ties, it distinguishes these reformative goals from the enforcement of specific penal conditions imposed as a matter of judicial policy.

The bench emphasized that the power to grant parole is primarily administrative. As such, authorities acting under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 , are legally precluded from exercising their discretion if doing so would contradict an express directive of the trial court. The Court’s position serves as a reminder that the administrative framework of prison management cannot be used to circumvent or nullify judicial sentencing orders that are currently in force.

" Parole is not a matter of right, and the competent authority may deny it for valid reasons," the Court stated. The bench further clarified that the seriousness of the underlying offense serves as a legitimate basis for the state to uphold strict limitations on a prisoner's movement, especially when those limitations were carefully crafted by the trial court to ensure public interest and safety.

Pathways for Future Legal Recourse

By dismissing the petition, the High Court has established a clear procedural roadmap for inmates situated similarly to the petitioner. The judgment does not permanently bar the convict from seeking future release; rather, it identifies the correct legal venue for such a request. The Court explicitly left the door open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forums to seek a formal modification or setting aside of the "no- parole " condition.

Furthermore, the dismissal provides a safety valve for unforeseen developments. The Court held that should a genuine, acute emergency arise in the future that necessitates the prisoner's temporary presence outside of prison walls, the petitioner remains entitled to move a fresh representation before the competent authority. This approach allows the legal system to balance the finality of judicial sentencing with the potential for evolving humanitarian exigencies, provided that the foundational legal order is addressed first.

The Court concluded by confirming that its current order was strictly limited to the issue of parole and did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the convict's broader pending appeal against his underlying conviction. The matter now rests with the petitioner to determine whether to seek a formal alteration of his sentence terms or to await further developments in his existing legal challenge. For now, the sentencing condition remains undisturbed, and the administrative refusal of the District Magistrate stands upheld in the interest of judicial consistency.