The Delhi High Court has called for greater sensitivity from jail authorities while considering parole applications, emphasizing that prisoners cannot be treated as "chattel" devoid of fundamental human rights.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while granting four weeks of parole to a convict serving a life sentence for rape and murder—having already spent over 20 years in prison—underscored the importance of maintaining prisoners' social ties, especially when mental health concerns are evident.

The Court criticized the authorities for opposing parole on the ground that the convict had attempted suicide in 2022. It noted that such an act reflects a fragile mental state and should not be treated as misconduct. “It should have rung the alarm bell that the convict needs to maintain social ties for his mental health,” the Court observed. Issuing a warning for a suicide attempt, it added, reflected a “scant understanding” of the convict’s mental health needs.

Justice Krishna remarked that imprisonment, even for grave offences, does not strip individuals of their Right to Life. “Merely because he is confined to jail does not reduce his status to that of a chattel, bereft of any basic Fundamental Human Rights,” she said, urging jail authorities to demonstrate more compassion in such matters.

The Court also pulled up the jail administration for repeatedly citing a delay in surrender after a previous parole—despite a January 2024 judicial order that had already addressed and negated this ground. The delay, the Court noted, was due to confusion during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The same ground should not be repeatedly reiterated for rejection... Once a judicial mind has examined and ruled on any ground, the same should be scrupulously followed,” the Court directed.

In the present case, the prisoner had sought parole for house repairs and to arrange funds for his family. The jail authorities dismissed these reasons as too “generic.” However, the Court stressed that parole, by design, aims to help prisoners maintain social connections. It said a more diligent effort to verify the stated reasons would have been “more appreciable.”

The Court further flagged the delay in processing the parole request, which had been filed in November 2024 but was only acted upon after a writ petition was filed. “It is indeed a very unhappy situation where time and again the petitioner is being pushed to approach the Court for grant of parole,” the Court remarked.

Eventually, the Court granted parole for four weeks, subject to conditions including a ₹10,000 personal bond.

Advocates Mohd Sheikh Noor and Zeeshan Diwan represented the petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi and Advocates Mathew M Philip, Sangeet Sibou, and Aniket Kumar Singh appeared for the State.