In a significant ruling aimed at protecting the rights of impoverished inmates, the Rajasthan High Court has strongly criticized the automatic and rigid demand for surety bonds from poor prisoners seeking parole. The court stated that such a practice, when imposed on those who cannot afford it, becomes an 'instrument of oppression and exclusion' and defeats the very purpose of parole as a reformative measure.
The Case of the Life Convict and Repeated Parole
The judgment came in response to a letter sent by a life convict, currently held at Central Jail in Jodhpur, which the court treated as a formal writ petition. The prisoner was convicted in a murder case in 2014. He had applied for his fourth period of regular parole, seeking 40 days of release.
While the District Parole Advisory Committee in Pali approved his 40-day parole, it attached a condition: the prisoner had to furnish two sureties of Rs 25,000 each, along with a personal bond of Rs 50,000. This was despite the fact that on his three previous paroles, the condition of providing sureties had been waived for him. Unable to meet this financial demand, the convict approached the High Court for relief.
Why the Court Waived the Surety Condition
A bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Farjand Ali examined the case. The court emphasized that the core legislative intent behind parole provisions is to encourage good conduct and act as a reformative and humanitarian tool. Parole, the bench noted, is a crucial part of the reformative theory of punishment.
The court held that the conditions for granting parole must align with the constitutional principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges observed that there is no absolute legal mandate requiring a surety bond for parole; committees have the discretion to waive it.
The bench ruled that insisting on sureties from a prisoner whose poverty and inability to provide them is well-established—especially after previous waivers—makes the granted parole meaningless and illusory. Consequently, the court ordered the prisoner's release on the strength of his personal bond alone, waiving the surety requirement entirely.
New Binding Guidelines to Prevent Hardship
To prevent similar hardships for other indigent prisoners in the future, the Rajasthan High Court issued a set of binding guidelines for parole committees across the state:
1. Personal Bond Amount: The amount for the personal bond should be reasonable and match the prisoner's economic background. It must not be exorbitant or oppressive.
2. First Parole for Indigent Prisoners: If the parole committee is satisfied upon inquiry that a prisoner is indigent at the time of the first parole, it should not impose a surety bond condition from the beginning.
3. Waiver on Application: If a surety condition was imposed initially and the prisoner later applies for a waiver proving indigence, the committee should use its discretion to waive it.
4. Consistency in Waivers: If a prisoner was previously released without a surety bond, the committee should continue to waive the requirement for subsequent paroles. A change should only be made if there is a recorded reason to believe the prisoner can now afford it.
5. Database Entry: Once a prisoner benefits from a surety waiver, the information must be sent to the Member Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) for entry into a computerized database.
6. Future Parole Assistance: Once entered in the database, it becomes the state's duty, in coordination with RSLSA, to facilitate future parole applications for such prisoners through legal aid.
The court directed all authorities to strictly follow these guidelines to curb unnecessary litigation and alleviate the suffering of impoverished prisoners seeking parole, ensuring the reformative spirit of the law is upheld.
