Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Order dated 31-3-2021 has principally been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that grant of leave on parole is governed by Rule 31-A of the Act of 1985 and under Rule 31-A, the State Government has framed rules namely, the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') to prescribe the entire scheme for grant of leave. In the event of breach of conditions by a prisoner during his leave / parole, Rules 11 and 12 have been framed which take care of overstay and power has been conferred as mentioned therein and as such, the leave / parole is fully occupied by the authorities mentioned in the Rules of 1989 regarding overstay after the leave period. Likewise, Note (3) of Rule 4-C of the Rules of 1989 clearly provides that the duration of leave shall be included while calculating the duration of the prisoner's total sentence. Therefore, the Director General (Prisons) has no power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 31-3-2021 holding that the period during which the petitioners remained outside the jail by the order of the Supreme Court and pursuant to which the High Power Committee has already extended the period of their parole, will not be counted. It is unconstitutional and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Director General (Prisons) apart from being arbitrary and having no basis for passing the impugned order, as the order is absolutely occupied by the authorities specified by the rule making authority. It has also been pleaded that Rule 18 of the Rules of 1989 clearly provides that in case if any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the matter shall be referred to the Government whose W.P.(PIL)No.66/2021 and other connected matters decision thereon shall be final and as such, the impugned order dated 31-3-2021 is liable to be quashed.

5. In W.P.(PIL)No.66/2021, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel, has been appointed as amicus curiae by this Court. He has filed a written note on 29-7-2021 before this Court. In the written note, learned amicus curiae has stated that duration of parole was extended by the order of the Supreme Court in In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons (supra) and High Power Committee was directed to be constituted and the said Committee was accordingly constituted and the petitioners were released on parole and that was further extended W.P.(PIL)No.66/2021 and other connected matters by this Court. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1989, the conditions of rules regarding surrender of prisoners should be relaxed by the Government. It has further been submitted that the Director General of Prisons does not have any power either under Rule 18 or Rule 19 of the Rules of 1989 and as such, the order dated 31-3-2021 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. It has also been submitted that Rule 4-A(3) of the Rules of 1989 prescribes that the prisoner who has shown good conduct during the period of the year in which he submits his application for leave would also be considered for grant of leave. Rule 10(f) of the Rules of 1989 provides that the concerned Superintendent of Police is the competent authority during the period when the prisoner is released on parole. Admittedly, the petitioners / prisoners were released in the month of March, 2020 and remained outside till January, 2021. As such, the order of the Director General of Prisons having no basis and contrary to the rules for parole as framed and which are occupied by the authorities made by the rule making authority, deserves to be set aside / quashed.

6. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned amicus curiae appearing in W.P.(PIL) No.66/2021, would submit as under: -

1. The Director General of Prisons does not have any power under the Rules of 1989 to restrict the right of eligible convicted persons from making application for parole governed by Section 31-A of the Act of 1985 read with the Rules of 1989 by order dated 31-3-2021, as the Rules of 1989 are a complete Code in which conditions of leave, eligibility for leave, sanctioning authority for first leave, sanctioning authority for subsequent W.P.(PIL)No.66/2021 and other connected matters leaves, conditions for release on leave, procedure for release on leave, arrest of a prisoner in event of breach of conditions, penalty for overstay, all have been provided. The authority competent to sanction emergency leave has been mentioned therein in which the Director General of Prisons has not been given any power to incorporate the conditions for making application for parole.

10. Mr. Aakash Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in 2 (1978) 4 SCC 494 W.P.(PIL)No.66/2021 and other connected matters W.P.(Cr.)No.351/2021, would submit that the order of the Director General of Prisons restricting the right to apply for parole in accordance with the Rules of 1989 is contrary to the law in this regard and is liable to be quashed.

11. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents, would make following submissions in opposition to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners: -