Case Note: Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Introduction

Parole entails the supervised release, for a specific duration, of a convicted individual who has completed a portion of his prison sentence in a correctional facility. However, whether or not should the duration for which the inmate has been out on parole be included in the actual sentence of imprisonment, has been the subject of controversy.

While the Supreme Court (henceforth, SC), in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India[1], held that since parole is a temporary arrangement in which a detainee is temporarily released to address specific circumstances, it does not disrupt the detention period and should, therefore, be considered as part of the total detention period, unless the rules, guidelines, or terms state otherwise, the Court has reversed its own ruling in State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh[2], Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan[3]among others.

In the present case, Anil Kumar, who had been convicted for murder, and sentenced for life imprisonment, was paroled owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. A writ petition was filed by him, before the SC praying that the duration of his parole should also be included in the sentence of imprisonment that was actually awarded to him, which was however, dismissed by the Hon’ble Court.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Anil Kumar was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302[4] & Section 304[5] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The verdict and punishment handed down by the learned Trial Court were also affirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (henceforth, HC), and the Special Leave Petition (henceforth, SLP) was rejected. However, the convict was granted temporary release based on the High Commission’s (henceforth, Commission) decision established in compliance with the SC’s directives due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In a later meeting held on May 9, 2021, the HPC passed an order that the duration of interim or special parole would not be considered as part of the prisoner’s or convict’s overall sentence.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950[6], before the SC, praying to set the order of the Commission aside as, if the duration for which he was released on special parole is not factored into the entire sentence, it could potentially hamper the petitioner’s entitlement to seek remission, which could further have adverse consequences for him.

Issue Raised Before the SC

The issue that was raised before the SC for consideration was whether or not the parole of a convict or prisoner, granted on a temporary or emergency basis in accordance with the Commission’s directives established by the SC, be considered as part of the convict’s total sentence duration?

Rules Applied

1. Section 3(3), Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988[7] (henceforth, the Act).

Arguments of the Petitioner

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the petitioner was paroled, in accordance with the order of the High Commission, that was set up following the SC’s directives. It was further submitted that in the subsequent orders passed by this Court, it was clearly stated that the inmates who were granted special parole owing to the Commission’s order, would not be required to surrender themselves until further instructions. Furthermore, it was stressed by the learned counsel that since Anil Kumar, the petitioner, was released solely because of the Commission’s order, and not on any application filed by him, or according to the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act, the duration of interim parole should be included in his total sentence period, as is also directed by some of the other States.  

It was also that had the petitioner not been granted special parole and had served the sentence for that duration, he would have been eligible for remission. Therefore, if this period is not considered as part of the total sentence that the convict was to serve initially, it would hamper the Petitioner’s right to claim remission, potentially harming his interests.

In light of these arguments, it was pleaded before the SC to issue the requested writ in favour of the Petitioner.

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that although the petitioner was paroled in accordance with the order of the High Commission, the minutes of the meeting, that was held by the Commission, clearly mentioned that no separate instructions to exclude the duration of special parole from the sentence are necessary, as statutory provisions already dictate how this issue should be determined, in line of which, the authorities are directed to make their decisions. Further, Section 3(3) of the Act was relied on as per which, the duration of parole should not be included in the prisoner’s actual period of imprisonment, thus submitting that the present writ petition has no merits, and should be dismissed.

The counsel also referred to the decision passed by the SC in Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana[8], where while examining the constitutionality of Section 3(3) of the Act, it was held that through a legitimate legislative action, the duration of an inmate’s release on parole can be excluded when calculating the actual sentence served by him.  

By these arguments, it was submitted before the SC that the petition filed by Anil Kumar should be dismissed, and not entertained.

Adjudication by the SC

The Court, while upholding the ruling passed in Avtar Singh[9], maintained the validity of the High Commission’s order of not including the duration, an inmate was out on parole, in the actual awarded sentence of imprisonment. The rulings of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh[10], and Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa[11], which dealt with the similar issue, were also referred to by the SC. Paragraph 10 of the ruling given in Dhungat[12] was emphasised over, as per which-

“If the inmates’ argument to include the duration of parole in the 14-year imprisonment period is given a green flag, influential prisoners could repeatedly obtain parole without restrictions, and this might undermine the purpose of actual sentence.”

After having thoroughly considered the rulings mentioned, the petitioner’s conviction for offenses under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, and a life imprisonment sentence, it was held by the SC that the convict must serve his sentence in accordance with the actual rule regarding remission, and the time spent on interim parole should not be included in the actual imprisonment period. Applying these grounds and rationale, the petition was dismissed.

Concluding Remarks

Crime holds significant societal relevance, as the manner in which a society addresses it determines its future. If the response is severe or unfair in its consequences, it results in grave injustice for those affected by it. The ways by which criminal justice is administered are pivotal in comprehending how a society deals with crime. Building upon this premise, the prison administration and legislative bodies have developed various rehabilitative programs, such as parole and furlough, to name a few. While furlough is typically a leave granted to individuals in service, parole is a conditional temporary release of a prisoner during his sentence based on the promise of good behaviour.[13] Now, the issue arises regarding whether or not the duration an inmate spends on parole should be considered as part of their sentence. The SC has expressed varying viewpoints on this matter on different occasions. While in Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors[14], the SC ruled that the duration of parole should be excluded from the detention period, in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India[15], the decision was reversed, stating that temporary release on parole doesn’t alter a detainee’s status, and the parole period should not be excluded from the maximum detention period.

The lack of provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the absence of a unified parole law in India have led to various states having their own regulations, statutes and legal precedents, thus causing ambiguity and uncertainty. This issue was heightened when the contagious coronavirus prompted numerous parole requests, and the lack of a consistent policy led to varying opinions among different states, compromising the equality in the progress of criminal justice.  

[1] Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, 2000 (1) SCR 945.

[2] State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394.

[3] Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55.

[4] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 302, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[5] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 304, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 32.

[7] Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, § 3 cl. 3, No. 28, Acts of Haryana State Legislature, 1988 (India).

[8] Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 18.

[9] Ibid.

[10] State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394.

[11] Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 16.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Tanish Arora and Hardik Batra, Parole in India – Current state and the Need for Reforms- I, CRL. L. BLOG (Nov. 6, 2023, 11:24 PM), https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2021/02/23/parole-in-india-current-state-and-the-need-for-reforms/.

[14] Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors, 1987 AIR 2098.

[15] Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, 2000 (1) SCR 945.

Written by Aarya Dubey, Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin