RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

[PROJECT WORK]

RELEASING OFFENDERS ON PAROLE IN INDIA: A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

(CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY, 8TH SEMESTER)

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

MANJEET KUMAR DR. GURNEET SINGH
ROLL NO. : - 18106 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
VIII SEMESTER LAW
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments

1. Introduction......................................................................................................1

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

1.2 OBJECTIVES
1.3 HYPOTHESIS
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2. Parole.................................................................................................................2

2.1 PAROLE IN INDIA

2.2 JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS GRANT OF PAROLE

3. COVID 19 and Grant of Parole.......................................................................7

4. Critical Issues in Parole...................................................................................10

5. Need for Reforms..............................................................................................14

6. Conclusion.........................................................................................................16

7. Bibliography......................................................................................................17
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to my Cyber Law
teacher Dr. Gurneet Singh, Assistant Professor of Law, who not only give me opportunity
to work on ‘RELEASING OFFENDERS ON PAROLE IN INDIA: A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS’,
but also gave crucial support in bringing to completion of the project. Without her
sustained attention and searching discussion on each topic, my project ‘RELEASING
OFFENDERS ON PAROLE IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS’ would never become
what it is.
I also wish to express my gratitude to the officials and others staff members of library of
RGNUL who rendered their help during the period of my project work.

I also thank to all my friend who have more or less contributed to the preparation of this
project. I will be always indebted to them.

The study has really helped me to explore more knowledge about my topic and I am sure it
will help in my future.

— Manjeet Kumar
Roll No.: - 18106
 RELEASING OFFENDERS ON PAROLE IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Crime is a matter of public importance in the society. The way a society responds to
crime is what shapes its future. If such way of responding is harsh or arbitrary in its
impact, it works a gross injustice on those caught within its toils. Ways of administration
of criminal justice play a significant role in understanding a society’s ways of dealing
with crime.

Criminal Justice Administration in this era is different from the past. With changing
times, the focus on correction, reformation and rehabilitation has increased and harsh,
retributive forms of punishments are now losing value. Time and again, multiple reports
across the world have focused on this aspect. To some extent, the Indian mentality is not
far behind other countries in following this liberal trend and the same is evident from the
fact that numerous petitions have been filed in this regard. Several judgements of the
recent times have focused on the need for prison administration to become more criminal
friendly. Increasing significance coupled with decreasing recidivism and the need for
reintegrative and reformative forms of punishment is shifting the paradigm of criminal
justice to a new and more liberal level.

One of these programs is the conditional release of prisoners. Such release could be
labelled as parole or furlough depending on its nature. Both of these, with an aim of
reformation of prisoners and humanisation of the prison framework form fundamental
part of the prison administration system.

This project is divided into two parts. The first part seeks to deal with parole in India as
laid down by certain statutes and judicial pronouncements. Alongside, it takes into light
the ongoing COVID- 19 pandemic and the need for grant of parole. The second part in
this series will discuss on the requirement of reforms and suggestions. Further, it will also
elaborate on the possible misuse of the law on parole and how to tackle the same.

1|Page
1.1. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The Indian criminal justice system has two main responsibilities, i.e. prevention and
control of crime and the protection of civil rights. The most important factor of
preventing and determining crime is the certainty of punishment the efficiency with
which who commits a crime is arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished. Efforts
should be made to improve the management of prosecution in order to increase the
certainty of conviction and punishment for most serious offenders and repeaters. For
better administration of criminal justice, recidivists, habitual offenders and violent
offenders need to be prosecuted expeditiously in a selective manner, because these
offenders pose a serious threat to the society.

In India, the police, the courts and other correctional agencies tend to be isolated from
each as well as from other communities groups, welfare agencies and human-rights
institutions. It appears that the administration of police, courts, prisons and probation
services tend to maintain their status-quo. As agents and organs of the government, the
police and courts conform to traditional practices and often have relatively little latitude
in which and how to operate. The primary goals of the criminal justice system can best be
secured only through proper co-ordination between the different wings of criminal justice
agencies.

1.2. OBJECTIVES

1. To study the philosophy of Parole in India and provisions relating to it.

2. To study how COVID 19 affected precedent Parole in India.

3. To find out the laws applicable to Parole and judicial precedents relating to it.

5. To critically examine the present Parole system and suggest changes.

2|Page
1.3. HYPOTHESIS

The present research has determined the following hypothesis to achieve the objectives.

1. Whether Parole system is reformative and rehabilitative in its application?

2. Whether present Parole system are sufficient for the future?

3. Judiciary has recognized many rights of offender whether they are implemented
in present system?

4. Is there any need for change in the present system of correctional administration?

1.4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has adopted doctrinal research method which implies the use of secondary
sources while making the paper. Various books, articles and journals have been
researched sand evaluation of the same was done while writing this research. Further
reference of the landmark judgments was taken however not all the cases regarding this
topic. Other sources like the internet have been used and total analysis of all the sources
was done.

3|Page
 PAROLE

The word ‘Parole’ comes from the French word “je donne ma parole” meaning ‘I give
my word’, while the dictionary definition is ‘word of honour’ 1. The term ‘parole’ was
first coined in a correctional context in 1847 by Samvel G. Howe, a Boston penal
reformer. Later, Parole was introduced by Brockway Zebulon in the year 1876 as a way
to reduce jail overcrowding and at the same time as a way to rehabilitate prisoners by
encouraging them to win their way out of prison through good behavior. Parole is
rewards granted to prisoners for good behavior, they entail a reduction in the number of
years and months one serves in prison.

Parole had its root in the Positivist School. The Classical School of thought opined that
people are free to choose their own conduct. While committing any crime, an offender
always calculates his gain, his pleasure, at the cost of other’s pain. So he must be
punished. But the Positivist school argued that it is the circumstance which forces
anybody to commit crime. So he must be rehabilitated. From there the thought of parole
arose. It provides a second chance to the prisoner to rehabilitate himself. The offender
might have committed an offence, but it is not desirable that he always be labeled and
must not be given any chance to rehabilitate himself. Its objectives are twofold: the
rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of society. It is a means of helping the
inmate to become a law-abiding citizen, while at the same time ensuring that he does not
misbehave or return to crime.

Parole ideally includes treatment in the form of supervision, guidance and assistance. It
has been rightly held that all released prisoners can benefit from the guidance of parole
officers, but the benefit that society itself would derive if all prisoners were kept under
close surveillance during the period of adjustment immediately following incarceration,
is also considerable2.A prisoner who has spent a decade inside has lost touch with the
everyday world of transport, shopping and renting, but has gained a set of different
everyday living skills relevant to prison life that needs to be unlearned.

1
S. C. Raina, Probation: Philosophy, Law and Practice, Regency Publications, New Delhi, 1996.
2
JaytilakGuha Roy, Prisons and Society: A Study of the Indian Jail System, Gian Publishing House, Delhi
4|Page
1989.

5|Page
2.1. PAROLE IN INDIA

In India, the grant of Parole is largely governed by the rules made under the Prison Act,
1894 and Prisoner Act, 1900. Each of the States has its own parole rules, which have
minor variations with each other. There are two types of parole- custody and regular. The
custody parole is granted in emergency circumstances like death in the family, serious
illness or marriage in the family. It is limited to a time span of six hours during which the
prisoner is escorted to the place of visit and return therefrom. The grant of parole is
subject to verification of the circumstances from the concerned police station and is
granted by the Superintendent of Jail.

Parole as a concept finds its origin in military law. Prisoners of war were granted interim
release so that they could return to their homes and live as part of the society for some
time on a promise of returning when such time ends. With passing time, Parole became
part of the criminal justice administration of India to provide prisoners with an
opportunity to spend some time being part of the society. However, it could only be
granted to a prisoner if such prisoner had served some part of his sentence already.

As established in the case of Budhi v. State of Rajasthan, the concept of Parole serves a
threefold purpose:

 As a motivating factor for prisoners’ reformation.

 Ensure as much intactness in the family relations of the prisoners as possible, as
they may be prone to breakage due to continued incarceration of the prisoner for a
long time.
 Help the misled offenders to gradually become part of the society and adapt to its
folds.

It is a device ensuring temporary release of prisoners grounded on good behaviour so that

they can escape the penal custody for some time and maintain their family and societal
links. This helps in facilitation of rehabilitation and social re-assimilation. It helps in
giving a situational solace to the parolee to fulfil certain needs and such parolee is
mandated to report to the supervisory officer regularly for the time he is out. In simple
words, a prisoner

6|Page
can seek parole and stay out of custody for a temporary period of time while he is yet to
complete his sentence.

2.2. JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS GRANT OF PAROLE

Penological innovation in the shape of parole is claimed to be a success in rehabilitation

and checking recidivism. That’s the view of the Indian judiciary. In Mohinder Singh3,
parole has been defined as “a conditional release of a prisoner, generally under
supervision of a parole officer, who has served part of the term for which he was
sentenced to prison”. Parole relates to executive action taken after the door has been
closed on a convict. During parole period there is no suspension of sentence but the
sentence is actually continuing to run during that period also.”

In Babu Singh and Ors. v State of U.P4., Justice Krishna Iyer remarked that “It is not out
of place to mention that if the State takes up a flexible attitude it may be possible to
permit long spells of parole, under controlled conditions, so that fear that the full freedom
if bailed out, might be abused may be eliminated by this experimental measure,
punctuated by reversion to prison. Unremitting insulation in the harsh and hardened
company of prisoners leads to many unmentionable vices that humanizing interludes of
parole are part of the compassionate constitutionalism of our system”.

In Babulal Das v The State of West Bengal5, the Court opined that persons kept
incarcerated and embittered without trial should be given some chance to reform
themselves by reasonable recourse to the parole power … calculated risks, by release for
short periods may, perhaps, be a social gain, the beneficent jurisdiction being wisely
exercised. Again in Inder Singh v The State (Delhi Administration) 6the Court has
emphasized on the need for liberal use of parole even in the case of heinous crimes.

3
State of Haryana &Ors. v. Mohinder Singh MANU/SC/0073/2000
4
1978CriLJ651
5
AIR1975SC606
6
(1978) 4 SCC 161

7|Page
 COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND GRANT OF PAROLE

The contagious coronavirus is dangerous to life. People who suffer from diabetes,
hypertension, chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases or old age stand at a
higher risk. The potential of this virus to spread increases in overcrowded areas. On
account of this, prisoners across the country filled for extensions and grants of interim
bails/paroles.

Considering the condition of prisons in India, many people were at a huge risk of
catching this deadly virus. In light of the same, the Supreme Court of India passed an
order urging States and Union Territories to effectively release the prisoners on parole
taking into account the nature of offence committed.

Since prisons in India are unhygienic and significantly overcrowded, they are prone to
serve as hotspots for the transmission of the virus. The Supreme Court with its Parole
order had taken a significant decision in this regard, however there were certain problems
that this order brought along. The first and the foremost concern in this regard is the
flawed parameter of classifying the prisoners to be released on Parole. As per the order,
the prisoners must be released based on the gravity of offence they have committed or the
prescribed duration of the sentence to be served by them. If the fundamental reason that
led to this situation is considered, i.e. the disease, it is important to take into account the
age of the prisoners as well as the fact that some of them may be having some underlying
diseases that put them at dire risk of getting affected by the virus. This category of
prisoners that needs release the most may not be entitled to the same as per the order
despite their age and health issues. The only way they can be released is if they fit the
criteria pertaining to gravity of offence committed by them, quantum of punishment, etc.
Moreover, the order did not even mandate the state to provide proper transfer facilities to
the parolees.7

Prime Facie, the order left it on the states to “determine which class of prisoners can be
released on parole” but in stating that it is left on the High Courts to decide which
category of prisoners must be released, the same must be dependent “upon the nature of
the offence,

8|Page
7
Bhawna Lakhina, Supreme Court’s Parole Order: Analysis Of The Need For Protection Of Prisoners
Amidst COVID-19, last accessed on: https://jilsblognujs.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/supreme-courts-
parole-order-analysis-of-the-need-for-protection-of-prisoners-amidst-covid-19/ (last accessed on 9 May
2021).

9|Page
the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced, or the severity of the
offence.” With these words, the order passed by the Supreme Court clearly binds the
States and High Courts with the abovementioned flawed parameter of adjudging the grant
of parole.

As a result, certain problems arose and a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the
Bombay High Court against such classification for being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Here, it becomes important to take into account the court’s
judgement in the case called National Alliance for People’s Movements Through its
National Convener and Others v. State of Maharashtra Through its Additional Chief
Secretary and Others. The question of whether inmates were entitled to the emergency
parole as a right in light of the pandemic was taken into consideration and it was held that
due to the absence of any “sanction of law traceable either to a legislation of the
competent legislature, or to an order having the force of law which the executive has
authority to make, or to a law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts”, the
said right to Emergency Parole could not be granted.

The Supreme Court had issued alarm bells around mid-March itself on how prisons high-
risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus in prisons, could turn them into "fertile
breeding grounds". It accordingly directed states to decongest their prisons. Maharashtra
became the first state to follow through with a high-powered committee recommending
on March 26 the release of under-trials and petty offenders facing up to seven years of
punishment, numbering some 11,000 inmates in the category.

Prisons in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi have reported COVID-
19 cases. According to data recorded in NCRB 2018, the total prison population in the
country accounts for more than 4,66,000 prisoners with an overall occupancy level of
117.6 per cent.8

The recent Delhi High Court judgement took cognizance of the medical condition of the
rape convict and granted bail categorizing him as vulnerable in this health emergency.
The precondition to bail is that he has to video call the investigating officer every Friday
at a

10 | P a g e
8
Sneha Bhura, How to effectively implement release of prisoners, a criminologist speaks, theweek,
available at: https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/05/23/how-to-effectively-implement-release-of-
prisoners-a-criminologist-speaks.html (last accessed on 9 May 2021).

11 | P a g e
specified time and drop-a-pin on google maps for his location. This is a very progressive
step considering the lockdown and to ensure restrictions.

Technology can help with the management of prisons especially in these times of social
distancing. One major change that the prisoners still lodged in the prisons have gone
through during this pandemic is that social visits from their loved ones have been
completely restricted for obvious reasons. Having a complete disconnect with the outside
world can damage the psychological well-being of the prisoners. To obviate this, some
prisons have started arranging e-mulaqats, where the prisoner can connect with their
loved ones through video conferencing. In times of such pandemic, technology
contributes as an aid in every sector varying from courts, police, politicians etc. Even
correctional and prison department could utilize various available technology in tracing
and monitoring of released prisoners.

The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crimes, the World Health Organization, and the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have passed a joint
statement on safeguards towards COVID-19 in prison and closed settings. Many South
Asian countries have released prisoners on parole, temporary suspension of sentence and
remission including Afghanistan which has released more than 10,000 prisoners with
special focus on women, children, and the elderly who may be under an enhanced risk of
the virus.9

India also needs to focus on vulnerable categories in prisons especially the elderly,
pregnant women and person with comorbidities. Prisons in Dubai are excessively using
virtual visits and virtual courtrooms to help their inmates. Some states in India have
already begun e-mulaqats, and it is important for other states to also follow suit, keeping
in mind the mental health of the prisoners.

9
fghanistan to release nearly 10,000 prisoners to curb coronavirus spread, Geo News, available
at: https://www.geo.tv/latest/279369-afghanistan-to-release-nearly-10000-prisoners-to-curb-
coronavirus-spread (last accessed on 9 May 2021).

12 | P a g e
 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PAROLE

Two significant issues arise in case of Parole in contemporary India- one, the refusal of
grant of parole on insufficient grounds and second, the misuse of parole.

4.1. MISUSE OF PAROLE: A ROUTE OF ESCAPE AND REOFFENDING?

While the notion of parole has been emphasized and re-emphasized by the Judiciary and
penologists alike to reduce the ills of prison life, whether parole really serves a purpose or
provides a means to escape becomes a significant question. The recent case of Manu
Sharma drew the ire of the entire nation towards a casual prison administration, and an
even more casual State Government, which granted and vociferously supported the grant
of Parole to a convict in the Jessica Murder case.

In Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 10, Manu Sharma
murdered Jessica on 30thApril, 1999 at about 2 a.m. Manu belonged to a rich influential
political family. On 20thDecember, 2008 he was sentenced with life imprisonment and
fined by the Delhi High Court. On 24thSeptember, 2009, he was granted parole for one
month. Later it was extended to one more month. Manu Sharma asked for parole on three
grounds: to attend religious rites for his late grandmother, to tend to his ageing mother
and, as the largest shareholder of Piccadilly Industries, to take care of the family’s
business interest. He returned to Jail on 10thNovember, 2009, only after he was traced to
a Delhi pub enjoying his night life with friends, drinks and dance. Media flashed the same
in national newspapers. Meanwhile, his (ill) mother was found attending programs and
functions in different parts of the capital. Investigation further revealed that his
grandmother passed away on April, 2008 and he was appealing for parole on that very
ground after one year and seven months of her passing away. Again on November 2011,
the High Court granted him five days parole to attend his brother’s wedding, but on the
condition that he should not visit any clubs or discos. “Interestingly, the parole was
granted despite Sharma violating his earlier parole. Justice VK Shali, while issuing notice
to the Delhi Police on Sharma’s application, had mentioned his conduct while he was on
parole

13 | P a g e
10
AIR 2010 SC 2352

14 | P a g e
pointing out that he visited discotheques in violation of parole conditions. ‘He need not
attend all (wedding functions),’Shali had commented earlier while rejecting his request
for parole from 10-20 November. The Delhi Police, however, did a U-turn on their earlier
stand of opposing parole for Sharma. Senior lawyer Pawan Sharma, appearing for the
Delhi Police, did not oppose Sharma’s parole plea but told the court that they had “no
objection” if he gave an undertaking to the court that he would not leave Karnal and
Ambala. In its earlier affidavit submitted to the court last week, the Delhi Police had
objected to Sharma’s plea pointing out that his past conduct did not entitle him to parole.”

The day Manu Sharma sauntered out of Delhi’s Tihar jail on parole, he left behind over a
dozen irate, but helpless prisoners. They too had applied for parole, much before him;
their reasons were as varied as a marriage in the family, the settlement of a property
dispute and the need to tend to sick family members. However, there’s been no word on
their applications. Reportedly, till September 15, 2009, the Delhi Government had
granted parole to only 11 out of 132 applicants.

The latest case on parole is Bibi Mohanty case. The convict, in the instant case, the son of
a DGP, Orissa, was sentenced for rape of a German national. He was sentenced to seven
years rigorous imprisonment along with fine. In November 2006, he was granted fifteen
days parole to visit his ailing mother. At that moment his father stood as his surety.
However, soon thereafter, he escaped and his father pleaded ignorance about his
whereabouts. A significant period of seven years elapsed, after which on a tip off, the
police was able to arrest him from Kerala in March, 2013. The convict had, by then,
changed his identity, and refused to reveal himself as Biti Mohanty. His father, seconded
him, refusing to accept that the person arrested was his son. A court has recently ordered
the DNA profiling of the convict to establish his identity.

An audit finding of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) also showed how parole
granted to prisoners had not only been abused but in a majority of the cases jailbirds had
made it a favourite escape route. The auditor called for records from Amritsar central jail
and from four Superintendents of Police and found that more than 8,200 prisoners
convicted for serious crimes under NDPS Act, murder, rioting, armed with deadly
weapons

15 | P a g e
etc., and released on parole between May 2001 and May 2008, did not surrender even
after expiry of their parole period.

Looking at the seriousness of the issue, CAG brought the matter to the notice of the
Centre when it found that late reporting of non-surrender of prisoners by the SPs coupled
with inaction on the part of SPs, SHOs and DMs facilitated the offenders to misuse the
facility and that it was becoming almost a trend. The police’s record of tracking parole
jumpers is also dismal. In Maharashtra, only 310 were re-arrested, in Punjab, 80 and in
UP, 14 between 2007 and 2011. “Jumping parole is no big deal. Even those convicted for
hard crimes are easily able to obtain no-objection certificates about their character, and
get parole. From there, it is a short step to not report back to prison,” says a senior IPS
office.

4.2. REFUSAL OF PAROLE: EXECUTIVE ARBITRARINESS AND APATHY

While this is the picture on one side, on the other, stands the dismal apathy of the State
Governments to grant parole to prisoners. “Release on parole is a wing of the reformative
process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a
useful citizen. Parole is a grant of partial liberty of lessening of restrictions to a convict
prisoner.”11 However, in this country, there are no statutory provisions dealing with the
question of grant of parole. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contain any
provision for grant of parole. By administrative instructions, however, rules have been
framed in various States, regulating the grant of parole. Thus, the action for grant of
parole is generally speaking an administrative action.

Parole Rules or administrative instructions, framed by the Government are purely

administrative in character and for securing release on parole, a convict has, to approach
the Government concerned or the jail authorities. Unfortunately, however, in most cases,
the executive acts in a mere mechanical manner, without application of mind and
appreciation of facts and refuses the chance of parole to the convicts. The police reports
are also prepared without due consideration to ground realities and more often, indicate a
threat to law and order or breach of peace, without substantiating the grounds for such

16 | P a g e
11
Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan 1987 Cri LJ 1924.

17 | P a g e
apprehension. Thus, in Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan 12[xlvii], a letter was addressed to
the Court by the convict that he was behind bars for a considerable period and his plea for
parole was rejected in view of a baseless police report. The Court examined the report
sent by the Superintendent of Police and concluded that the same was vague and
uncertain. “It is well settled that the object for grant of parole is to make necessary efforts
to rehabilitate a convict-prisoner in the main stream of society. Maintaining of law and
order and prevention of breach of peace are the aspects required to be taken care of by the
authorities concerned but on vague and uncertain suggestions, the petitioner cannot be
denied parole when he is otherwise eligible and entitled therefor.”

In Kesar Singh Guleria v State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, referring to the grounds for
declining parole the Court proceeded to hold that a mere disturbance of law and order
leading to disorder is not the same as disturbance which subverts the public order. An
apprehended breach of peace or the possibility of the prisoner committing a crime during
the parole period, without anything more, would constitute a law and order problem and
not a problem touching public order. It would thus appear that “public order”
comprehends disorder of lesser gravity than those affecting “security of the State” and
that “law and order” comprehends disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting “public
order”. In cases involving problems of law and order, the proper course to be adopted is
not to give an opinion that the request for release be rejected but to advice that the release
be ordered subject to appropriate conditions, such as, that surveillance be kept over the
prisoner during the period of his temporary release and that he asked to report to the
nearest police station at appropriate intervals.

12
MANU/RH/0221/2012

18 | P a g e
 NEED FOR REFORMS

As observed in the previous part, the subjectivity and non-uniformity in the procedure to
increase the scope of rehabilitation and reformation throughout the country leads to
significant confusion and differentiation. It is owing to the lack of codification of the
parole law, that some courts recognise only two kinds of paroles, i.e. regular and custody
whereas some recognise another category, the emergency parole.

If the very recent situation of the current pandemic is taken into consideration, the
Supreme Court order provided a limited liberty to different states and union territories to
have different parameters of deciding the criteria for prisoners to be able to seek interim
bail/parole. This means that the inmates of different states could possibly be subject to
different criterium while seeking parole to some extent.

The first and the foremost reform that is required is the codification of this law and its
uniform applicability throughout the country. Considering the vast acceptance and
recognition of parole as a concept throughout the world and even in India, the legislature
needs to draft a legislation that is comprehensive as well as objective to its extent and
holds a uniform applicability. It is true that the administration of parole is not a halted
process in India in the absence of such legislation, but to address the absence of
uniformity, its codification is important to avoid any kind of vagueness or arbitrariness in
the administration of justice. A uniform law can be regarded as a step forward. The law
of parole must be regulated strictly in accordance with the norms and procedures
prescribed statutorily.

Furthermore, an assessment of the existing laws followed by required changes with

regards to proper effectiveness of the system of parole so that it effectively meets the
intended standards of objectivity and ensures rehabilitation of the prisoners must also be
executed. This could be done with a detailed survey targeting how parole system has
impacted inmates over the course of past few years. This would be important to
distinctively chalk out the requirements of the current era and successfully meet them.
Something similar was done in the United States of America. The review study
conducted there brought into light

19 | P a g e
the immense success of the probation system wherein minimal reconvictions of the same
offenders were reported.13

Another important aspect to be taken into consideration is the clarification of parole laws
with regards to offenders who are minors. In the United States of America, certain
instances had taken place that led Supreme Court of the United States to pass a judgement
in the case of Graham v. Florida “that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life
imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.” Such a provision would help
the legal framework in India as the crime rate among minors in the country is not
negligible.

Additionally, it is important to keep in mind, that such law must be liberal and criminal
friendly, while not putting the lives of victims or the offenders themselves at risk. If a
criminal is released on parole, there is a possibility that they may seek vengeance from
the victim and hence commit crimes while being out on parole. There is another
possibility that such parolee is a habitual offender and while being out on parole, he or
she resorts to committing the same crime again, to innocent people as was witnessed in
the Saibanna case. Another possibility is that the social stigma surrounding crime fills the
general public or other people outside the prison with immense hatred and contempt
towards an offender and when this offender is released on parole, he or she could end up
getting killed by aggrieved members of the society or any party directly concerned in
their criminal matter. Thus, the law on parole must be such that it can mete out the
possibility of these, or other events similar to these as much as possible. With regards to
this, we would lay the suggestion of partially restoring the Delhi Parole Guidelines’ rule
struck down in the Dinesh Kumar case. Hence, not completely prohibiting criminals
having committed heinous crimes to seek parole, but putting down objective criteria such
as determination of whether the criminal is a habitual offender, or partially insane, short
tempered, etc.

20 | P a g e
13
R.F. Sparks, The Effectiveness of Probation: A Review, in Crime and Justice – 3: The Criminal in
Confinement 211-216 (Leon Radzinowicz and Marvin E. Wolfgang eds., London: Basic Book Publishers,
1971)

21 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The popular quote which was delivered by the father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi
essentially “Hate the crime, not the criminal” should be the approach held in mind in
rehabilitating prisoners. The contemporary criminal punishment must seek to correct
criminals and transform their behaviour rather than merely to penalize wrongdoers.

Of all the measures of a rehabilitative nature that form part of the criminal justice
administration, parole is unique because of the fact that it is not a right like bail, but a
suspension on the promise of good behaviour. The significance of parole as described in
this article, stands out and it is a sorry state of affairs that the law on parole is yet to be
codified. The penal laws of India were framed in an era where neoclassical criminology
was prevalent in the society and aggressive and punitive forms of punishment were
believed to be more effective and preventive of crime. Therefore, acceptance of concepts
like parole was difficult to incorporate. Moreover, since there was/is an absence of this
concept in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it was held that different States and
Union Territories could come up with their respective parole laws when the society began
modernising and realised the need for liberal manifestation of the procedural law. Today,
with increased awareness, the society is transitioning towards more liberal and
rehabilitative forms of punishment. Hence, it is extremely important to codify the parole
law and have its uniform applicability to the whole of India.

22 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY, DEEP AND

DEEP PUBLICATIONS, (2002).

2. N.K. CHAKRABARTI, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE: INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTION, NEW DELHI, VOL. 2

(1999).

3. PARANJAPE N.V. PROF., CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY WITH

VICTIMOLOGY, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS, ALLAHABAD, (2014).

4. S. C. RAINA, PROBATION: PHILOSOPHY, LAW AND PRACTICE, REGENCY

PUBLICATIONS, NEW DELHI (1996).

5. JAYTILAKGUHA ROY, PRISONS AND SOCIETY: A STUDY OF THE INDIAN

JAIL SYSTEM, GIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE, DELHI (1989).

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1986.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The Prison Rules 1999.

5. The Prisons Act, 1894.

6. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

23 | P a g e
ARTICLES

1. B.R. Sharma and Vandan Kashyap, Prison System in India: a

Historical Retrospection, 30 CMLJ, 136, (1994).

2. Bhawna Lakhina, Supreme Court’s Parole Order: Analysis Of The Need For

Protection Of Prisoners Amidst COVID-19.

3. Sneha Bhura, How to effectively implement release of prisoners, a criminologist

speaks, theweek.

4. Tanish Arora, Parole in India – Current state and the Need for Reforms THE

CRIMINAL LAW BLOG.

WEBSITE VISITED

1. www.academia.edu

2. www.livelaw.in

3. www.legalserviceindia.com

4. www.mondaq.com

24 | P a g e