2018 (4) TMI 1981 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition for Emergency parole - Challenged the rejection of the parole request based on the petitioner being classified as a hardcore criminal and not having completed five years of sentence -Judicial Review - seeking to release under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1988 for the petitioner to care for his ailing father - Petitioner serving a ten-year sentence following a conviction u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. HELD THAT - The petitioner does not fall under the category of hardcore prisoner and moreover he is not a hardcore prisoner. As per the provisions the release of a prisoner on parole can be declined in case his release on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The recommendation made by the concerned authority for not releasing the petitioner on parole is merely that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment and is involved in many cases. No such eventuality has been mentioned neither in the reply nor in the arguments raised by learned State counsel. Admittedly the administrative decision is subject to judicial review in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court but the administrative action or even a non-statutory administrative action may relate to judicial review. The violation of constitutional provisions or any statutory provision would invalidate the administrative decision. However every administrative decision must be reasonable. The principle of reasonableness known as Wednesbury principle which is having three elements i.e. the authority should take all relevant facts into consideration; it should exclude or irrelevant facts from consideration; and the decision should neither be perverse nor irrational. Perverse means improper or contradictory but in the context of administrative decision it symbolizes a decision not supported by any evidence and irrational means an absurd or illogical decision. Accordingly the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a petition filed for emergency parole u/s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking release under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 for the petitioner to care for his ailing father. The rejection of the parole request based on the petitioner being classified as a hardcore criminal and not having completed five years of sentence is challenged.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Emergency Parole Petition
The petitioner filed a petition for emergency parole under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking temporary release to care for his ailing father. The petitioner is serving a ten-year sentence following a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue 2: Rejection of Parole Request
The petitioner's parole request was rejected based on being classified as a hardcore criminal and not having completed the required five years of sentence. The rejection was made despite the petitioner's good conduct in jail and the absence of any misconduct during custody.

Issue 3: Legal Provisions
The judgment refers to Section 5(A)(2) of the Parole Act, which outlines the eligibility criteria for temporary release, emphasizing the completion of five years of imprisonment for hardcore prisoners. The Act also provides specific provisions for the release of hardcore prisoners for specific events, such as attending family functions under armed police escort.

Issue 4: Judicial Review
The judgment highlights the importance of judicial review in administrative decisions related to parole requests. It emphasizes the need for administrative decisions to be reasonable, considering all relevant facts and excluding irrelevant ones. The court found the rejection of the petitioner's parole request to be a violation of administrative decision-making principles.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner's release on parole for three weeks to attend to his ailing father. The judgment underscores the need for administrative decisions to be in line with legal provisions and reasonable, ensuring fair treatment of prisoners seeking temporary release for valid reasons.