Right to perform last rites is part of dignity under Article 21; mechanical denial of parole impermissible: Delhi High Court

The Court reaffirmed that humanitarian factors were a component element to constitutional parole jurisprudence. (AI image)

In a prominent restatement of the humanitarian foundation of the parole jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has considered that the right to hold the last rites of a parent is an imperative religious and moral obligation, and refusal of parole in such cases would amount to infringement of the right of a convict to dignity as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for emergency parole.The order was passed by Justice Ravinder Dudeja in Ajmer Singh alias Pinka v. The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjhawala, in which the State Court allowed the four weeks parole to a convict so that he could attend the “Tehravi” ceremony and perform the last rites of his deceased father.Background & ConvictionThe petitioner was found convicted in FIR No. 139/2018 filed at the Police Station Kanjhawala under Sections 376/354B/506 IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act. He was ordered to be subjected sentence vide order dated 24.04.2025:

All Sentences were instructed to run concurrently.At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner had served about one year and nine months and fifteen days of imprisonment (excluding remission). He had not availed any spell of parole or furlough in his custody, and his jail behavior, as reported by the Nominal Roll of 25.09.2025, was marked as having been “Satisfactory”.It was submitted that the petitioner’s father had passed away on 16.09.2025 due to a heart attack, a fact verified by the Investigating Officer and that the final rites/“Tehravi” ceremony was scheduled for 26.09.2025. Being the eldest son, the petitioner sought two months’ emergency parole to discharge his religious and familial obligations. As the eldest son, the petitioner requested two months of emergency release on parole to fulfill his religious and family duties.State’s Objection and Rule 1212The State opposed the two-month parole request citing the fact that Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides maximum of four weeks of parole in a single spell.Rule 1212 provides that a convict may be released on parole for a maximum of eight weeks in a conviction year in minimum two spells, but not more than four weeks in a single spell. The State thus argued that the two months of prayer that the petitioner sought was unlawful under the statute. However, the State fairly acknowledged that the death of the petitioner’s father and the scheduled final rites had been properly confirmed and that parole on limited purpose could be granted in consideration of the new scenario.Court’s AnalysisThe Court observed that parole is not just an administrative concession but a proven aspect of correctional jurisprudence that seeks to allow a convict to have family and social connections and release fundamental responsibilities.It pointed out that the parole jurisprudence in India is humanitarian and reformist in nature. The rationale behind temporary release is that it is meant to maintain family ties and social integration, even in cases involving grave convictions.The Court held:“The right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.”Even though the Court recognized the severity and seriousness of the crimes with which the petitioner was convicted, it warned against being strict in the interpretation of prison rules.Justice Dudeja observed that denying parole despite a verified humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.The Court made it clear that though gravity of offence remains a relevant consideration, it cannot override genuine and emergent humanitarian circumstances. There has to be a balance between the punishment that is provided through incarceration and the constitutional right of the convict to dignity.Balancing the seriousness of the conviction with the immediacy of the humanitarian ground, the Court held that release for four weeks would adequately serve the purpose of enabling the petitioner to perform the last rites and related customary rituals, without diluting prison discipline.Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks from the date of release, subject to stringent conditions including:

The Court made it clear that violation of any of the conditions would result into cancellation of parole immediately.The writ petition was granted to the level of four weeks parole, the Court reaffirming that humanitarian factors were a component element to constitutional parole jurisprudence and that the dignity of a convict under Article 21 does not cease to exist in prison.W.P.(CRL) 3146/2025 AJMER SINGH ALIAS PINKA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO KANJAWALAFor Petitioner: Mr. Rajbir Singh Bal and Ms. Sanstuti Mishra, Advs.For Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC SI Rakesh, P.S. Kanjhawala.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)