Emergency parole granted to prisoner under NDPS Act after authorities failed to justify security concerns

The Punjab and Haryana HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of emergency parole for a prisoner serving ten years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, who sought release to care for his ailing father under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. The court found the petitioner was not a hardcore criminal and the administrative decision lacked reasonableness under the Wednesbury principle, as authorities failed to demonstrate that release would endanger state security or public order, making only general assertions about multiple cases without specific evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a petition filed for emergency parole u/s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking release under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 for the petitioner to care for his ailing father. The rejection of the parole request based on the petitioner being classified as a hardcore criminal and not having completed five years of sentence is challenged.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Emergency Parole Petition
The petitioner filed a petition for emergency parole under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking temporary release to care for his ailing father. The petitioner is serving a ten-year sentence following a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue 2: Rejection of Parole Request
The petitioner's parole request was rejected based on being classified as a hardcore criminal and not having completed the required five years of sentence. The rejection was made despite the petitioner's good conduct in jail and the absence of any misconduct during custody.

Issue 3: Legal Provisions
The judgment refers to Section 5(A)(2) of the Parole Act, which outlines the eligibility criteria for temporary release, emphasizing the completion of five years of imprisonment for hardcore prisoners. The Act also provides specific provisions for the release of hardcore prisoners for specific events, such as attending family functions under armed police escort.

Issue 4: Judicial Review
The judgment highlights the importance of judicial review in administrative decisions related to parole requests. It emphasizes the need for administrative decisions to be reasonable, considering all relevant facts and excluding irrelevant ones. The court found the rejection of the petitioner's parole request to be a violation of administrative decision-making principles.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner's release on parole for three weeks to attend to his ailing father. The judgment underscores the need for administrative decisions to be in line with legal provisions and reasonable, ensuring fair treatment of prisoners seeking temporary release for valid reasons.

---