The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Arun Monga, reaffirmed that parole is not just a concession but a reformative and humanitarian right under Article 21, protecting an inmate’s dignity and preserving essential family and social ties.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Justice Arun Monga of the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that parole is not merely a concession but an important reformative and humanitarian measure aimed at preserving the convict’s dignity and family ties, both of which form an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment after being convicted under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), approached the High Court seeking directions for the grant of parole for a period of eight weeks.
According to the nominal roll dated 03.10.2025, the petitioner had completed 15 years, 11 months, and 28 days of actual incarceration, and had earned 2 years, 2 months, and 12 days of remission — aggregating to over 18 years and 2 months of custody.
The plea stated that despite a prior direction dated 16.09.2025, requiring authorities to decide on the parole application within two weeks, no decision was made. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Sentence Review Board’s order was passed mechanically and was based on incorrect records of jail punishments.
Petitioner’s Grounds for Parole
The petitioner sought temporary release on the ground that his wife is ailing, suffering from various illnesses, and he wishes to maintain social and emotional ties with his daughter, who resides in Australia.
Court’s Observations
Justice Arun Monga emphasized that parole serves a dual purpose; it acts as a reformative measure for the convict and fulfills a humanitarian role by allowing them to reconnect with their family and society.
In a strong observation, the Court stated:
“While parole, no doubt, is a concession, but it is, in essence, a reformative measure grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to life with dignity even during incarceration.”
The Court further noted:
“Parole also serves a reformative and humanitarian purpose by preserving family ties and supporting rehabilitation. Despite directions dated 16.09.2025 requiring a decision on his parole within two weeks, the authorities failed to comply. Such administrative delay cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner’s rights.”
ALSO READ: I Am Reminded of the Film The Lunchbox, Where Ila Dreams of Moving to Bhutan: CJI Gavai
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sarthak Maggon, Advocate Raunak Parmar, and Advocate Aditya Kumar
Respondent: ASC (Criminal) Yasir Rauf Ansari, Advocate Alok Sharma.
Case Title:
Deepak Nanda v. State of NCT of Delhi
W.P.(CRL) 2682/2025
