BUDHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Martin Luther King Jr., the great American Civil Libertarian once said. "I have a dream to be free at last, to be free at last, to be free at last." The promise of liberty is not just enshrined in the Constitution of India, out the dream of liberty is also engrained in every soul. Even a convicted prisoner, incarcerated within the strong walls of a jail, shackled to the chains, dreams of freedom at last. Such was the hope of the Peitioner after he completed of his life sentence. He had prayed that he too should be released on regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as the Parole Rules' for short). However, the hope was short lived. Vide Order dated 14-6-2004, the Advisory Committee, constituted under the Parole Rules, rejected the Petitioner's case for regular parole. Hence the petition before us.

(2.) Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, has challenged the said order on four accounts. Firstly, the Advisory Committee has rejected the Petitioner's parole on the ground that although the Petitioner had sought regular parole on the ground of operation of his mother's eyes, but there are other brothers of his who could get the operation done. Therefore, according to the Social Welfare Officer the parole need not be granted for the said purpose. According to Mr. Sahni, a convicted prisoner need not specify any reason for seeking a regular parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. Secondly, the Advisory Board has ipse dixit accepted the adverse Police Report without consideration the fact that the said report is a mechanical one. Thirdly, although the Petitioner is unmarried, yet the Social Welfare Officer has stated that the Petitioner's wife and children have also requested that the Petitioner should not be released on parole. Thus, the said report is contrary to the factual matrix of the case. Fourthly, the conduct of the Petitioner should be taken into account only up to the date of the impugned order. The subsequent events should not be considered. For, what is being challenged is the decision of the Advisory Board as it was taken on the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the subsequent conduct is immaterial.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. M. L. Goyal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has argued that since parole cannot be claimed, as of right, therefore, the convicted prisoner should furnish a reason for seeking a parole. Secondly, the Police Report is not a mechanical one. Thirdly, the Petitioner's wife and children have stated that the Petitioner should not be released on parole. Foruthly, on 4-6-2005 the Petitioner was involved in a fray in the jail. Thus, he has flouted the jail disciple. Hence, the Petitioner should not be granted the benefit of parole.