Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. While denying parole, a holistic view about the philosophy of parole, about the jail conditions, about the problems of prison administration have to be kept in mind. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of Parole is three-fold : firstly, the use of parole as a motivational force for reforming the prisoners. Secondly, to keep the family ties intact as the family ties are likely to be broken because of the long periods of incarcerations. Thirdly, to slowly draw the misled soul back into the folds of the society. Since punishment should be more reformative and less retributive, the role of parole as a reformative measure has to be acknowledged. By denying parole at the drop of a hat is to ignore the importance of Parole in the jail administration. It is precisely for these reasons that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) has emphasized the need for liberal use of parole even in the case of heinous crimes. In the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, while upholding the constitutional validity of S. 433-A of Cr. P. C., a provision of law which debars the release of heinous criminals before the completion of fourteen years of incarcerations, even in their case, the Supreme Court has encouraged the jail administration to liberally use the parole system. Aware of the problem of over-crowding in the jails, considering the pitiable conditions of our jails, in the case of Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, their Lordships of the Apex Court again reiterated the need for giving the benefit of parole to a large numbers of convicted prisoners. But notwithstanding these pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Advisory Board continues to be a miser in granting parole to the deserving prisoners. It would be in the interest of the jail administration, in the interest of the judiciary, in the interest of the society if parole were liberally granted.