Parole refusal must rest on statutory grounds, not arbitrary or irrelevant considerations, when assessing release of a convicted prisoner.

Parole under the Haryana parole framework must be decided on relevant statutory grounds, including the specific restrictions for hardcore prisoners and the legally recognised public order or security concerns. A refusal based mainly on inapplicable considerations, such as an unsupported assumption about the prisoner's status or an unverified period requirement, is vulnerable to judicial review. Where the record discloses no material showing threat to State security or public order, administrative rejection may be treated as arbitrary and unreasonable. The writ court therefore treated the parole refusal as unsustainable and set it aside, emphasising that parole decisions must rest on statutory conditions and relevant considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of parole to a convicted prisoner was sustainable when the competent authority relied on inapplicable considerations and failed to act on the statutory grounds governing release under the parole law.

Analysis: The request for temporary release was examined in the context of the Haryana parole statute, including the definition of hardcore prisoner, the special restrictions applicable to such prisoners, and the ground of refusal under public order and security concerns. The decision-maker rejected the request mainly on the premise that the prisoner was a hardcore criminal and had not completed the period said to be required for parole. The record did not disclose any material showing that release would endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The writ court applied supervisory judicial review and the standard of reasonableness, holding that administrative action affecting parole must be based on relevant statutory considerations and not on arbitrary or extraneous factors.

Conclusion: The rejection of parole was unsustainable. The petitioner was entitled to parole, and the refusal was set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Parole under the governing statute cannot be refused on arbitrary or irrelevant grounds, and the competent authority must its decision on the statutory conditions and legally relevant considerations, subject to judicial review for unreasonableness.

---