Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. With regard to the argument that the petitioners have been earlier given parole by the Apex Court and later parole has been granted by the High Court, it is argued that the Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution may make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any case. It is argued that such power is not available to the High Courts. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1593. It is also argued that if the Parole Rules put restrictions on the grant of parole, then the High Court cannot go beyond the Rules unless the High Court set aside the Rules being ultra-vires the Constitution. It is further argued that even if, the Supreme court has granted the parole, that was prior to coming of the new Parole Rules. There being a specific bar in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, the same should be considered to be an order for doing complete justice under the power conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that there being a specific bar under the new Parole Rules as well as old Parole Rules, the judgment delivered in Hitesh (supra) also cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as even on the date of conviction, as per the then prevalent old Parole Rules, a convict under the TADA Act was not entitled to any parole throughout his life, except in case of grave illness of the convict, his parents, children or spouse.