The Delhi High Court has directed the State authorities to frame specific rules to address cases where convicts are unable to surrender after their parole or furlough period ends due to old age or serious health conditions.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that many such convicts are left in legal limbo, waiting indefinitely for consideration of premature release despite being physically incapable of surrendering.
“Such convicts are often required to stay outside beyond the permissible period for reasons that are outside their control… it is incumbent on the appropriate authorities to frame rules covering such exigencies or amend the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018,” the Court said.
The direction came while hearing the plea of an 80-year-old woman, convicted along with her late husband and son under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
• Her son passed away in 2015, and her husband died in custody in 2017 due to cardiac arrest.
• The petitioner was granted parole in 2017 due to her age and medical condition.
• Soon after release, she suffered a hip fracture, and her parole was repeatedly extended over the years due to her deteriorating health.
A status report noted she was bedridden, unable to walk, and entirely dependent on an attendant for daily activities.
In 2024, a coordinate bench had already extended her parole for 12 months, acknowledging her fragile condition. She has effectively been on parole for nearly eight years since her initial release.
Justice Mahajan noted that Rules 1212 and 1212A of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 allow parole only up to 16 weeks per year, even in emergent situations. However, this framework does not account for convicts who become incapacitated and physically unable to surrender.
“This Court cannot be so inhumane as to adopt a callous approach blind to the plight of an aged woman already suffering from myriad ailments,” the judge remarked.
“By mere virtue of conviction, a convict is not denuded of their fundamental rights, and punishment cannot be one which defiles the dignity of an inmate.”
Directions
• The Court ordered that the petitioner be confined to her home under the care of her son, Tilak Raj, until her case for premature release is decided.
• The authorities were directed to consider her case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
• The State has been asked to frame or amend the rules to address similar cases of aged or ailing convicts unable to surrender after parole expiry.
The Court thus struck a balance between enforcement of penal policy and humanitarian considerations, emphasizing that the right to dignity survives even during imprisonment.
Case Title: Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi
