On Beant Singh assassination convict’s parole plea, High Court lays down time-bound procedure for Delhi jail

“Needless to mention that all authorities whose reports are to be obtained/filed shall also take a special note of the timelines undertaken above,” the bench observed.

The bench passed the order on July 6 while disposing of Hawara’s criminal writ petition seeking four weeks’ parole to attend to his 81-year-old mother, whose health was “rapidly deteriorating on account of advanced age related physical and cognitive disorders”. The order was made available Thursday.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Hawara, submitted that his client had undergone 29 years of actual custody and had “never been granted any concession of parole or remission” and that “no complaint of misconduct or any other prison offence has ever been reported” against the petitioner during this period.

The counsel contended that a total of 36 cases had been registered against Hawara of which he was convicted in seven, has undergone the entire sentence in six cases and is undergoing his sentence in the instant case. In the remaining 29 cases, Hawara has either been acquitted or discharged or the petitions stand disposed of in his favour.

It was submitted that although the Delhi High Court had directed the authorities to communicate a decision on the parole application, the Mandoli Jail Superintendent instead forwarded Hawara’s case to the Punjab government. The Delhi government too directed that the case file be sent to Punjab “regarding grant of parole as he has been convicted by the State of Punjab.”

Hawara’s counsel argued that “the communication is erroneous and is based on a misunderstanding of the order of the high court” and on the assumption that since Hawara was “an ordinary resident of Punjab, hence, his application for parole too ought to be considered by them”.

The counsel further submitted that the Mandoli Jail Superintendent was not the competent authority to take a decision as per law as the case was registered in Chandigarh and the conviction was also recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. A reminder representation was later sent to the Mandoli Jail Superintendent, Punjab government and the Chandigarh Model Jail authorities.

Referring to the status report filed by the Mandoli Jail Superintendent, Hawara’s counsel submitted that the Punjab government had informed that based on inputs from the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib, and the Director, Bureau of Investigation, multiple cases had been registered against Hawara and the Bureau of Investigation had “recommended not to grant parole to the petitioner.”

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that “the Home Secretary of the… Union Territory, Chandigarh is the competent authority to take a decision in this regard and to make his recommendation”.

Appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, Senior Advocate JS Toor argued that under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, as applicable to Chandigarh, “a decision with respect to the temporary release of a convict is to be taken by the Superintendent of the Jail, where a convict is undergoing his sentence.”

Since Hawara is lodged in Mandoli Jail after being shifted there following a jailbreak incident, the UT Administration’s role was only to furnish its report, he submitted. Toor also referred to the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, contending that Hawara was ineligible for parole as the rules bar parole for convicts involved in terrorist activities and those who had escaped from custody. However, he maintained that the final decision rested with the Mandoli Jail Superintendent.

Senior Law Officer SGK Murty, representing Delhi Prisons, acknowledged before the Bench that “the error in forwarding the case of the petitioner occurred on account of a misunderstanding in the office of the Superintendent of Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli” and submitted that the parole request would be redirected to the Home Secretary, UT Chandigarh. He assured the court that after receiving the UT’s comments, “an appropriate decision shall be taken in a time bound manner” on the parole application.