Supreme Court clarifies parole eligibility for TADA convicts: Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) INSC 774

Introduction

Can a person convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) be denied parole solely based on the nature of the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. This case explores the balance between public safety and the reformation of convicts. The judgment clarifies that a TADA conviction does not automatically disqualify an individual from parole.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice A.K. Sikri authored the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Asfaq, was convicted under TADA for his involvement in the 1993 serial bomb blasts. These blasts occurred on December 6, 1993, in five trains. The prosecution alleged that Asfaq supplied explosive materials. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on February 28, 2004. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction.

In 2014, Asfaq applied for 20 days of parole. The District Parole Advisory Committee rejected his application, stating it lacked jurisdiction over TADA prisoners. This led to a series of legal challenges. The High Court of Rajasthan initially directed the committee to review the application. However, the committee again rejected it, citing the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958.

Asfaq then applied to the Government of India, which was also rejected on November 10, 2015. Simultaneously, a parole application to the State of Rajasthan was rejected on November 16, 2015. Finally, the High Court dismissed Asfaq’s petition on May 1, 2016, stating that parole cannot be claimed as a right in serious crimes. The High Court also noted that since the Supreme Court had decided the appeal, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District Parole Advisory Committee initially rejected Asfaq’s parole application, stating it lacked jurisdiction. The High Court of Rajasthan directed the committee to reconsider the application. However, the committee again rejected it based on the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958.

Subsequently, Asfaq’s parole application was rejected by both the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan. The High Court dismissed Asfaq’s writ petition, stating that parole cannot be claimed as a right in serious crimes. The High Court also noted that since the Supreme Court had decided the appeal, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court discussed the concepts of parole and furlough. Parole is a conditional release of a prisoner, often granted for specific reasons. It is a temporary suspension of the sentence. Furlough is a brief release from prison, granted as a good conduct remission.

The Court noted that many State Governments have guidelines on parole. These guidelines often distinguish between custody parole and regular parole. Custody parole is for emergencies, while regular parole is for maintaining family and social ties.

The Court also referred to the Central Government Rules of 1955, noting they are basic. The Court emphasized the need to update these rules.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that a conviction for a serious or heinous crime should not automatically disqualify an individual from parole.
• The appellant submitted that the purpose of parole is different from the nature of the offense. Therefore, the nature of the offense should not be a consideration.
• The counsel for the appellant cited cases where TADA convicts were granted parole.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant’s case was duly considered.
• The respondents submitted that the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Social Justice Department, and Superintendent of Jail had all given adverse reports about the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking parole.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases:

• State of Maharashtra and Another v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [CITATION: (2006) 4 SCC 776], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the differences between parole and furlough.
• State of Haryana and Others v. Mohinder Singh [CITATION: (2000) 3 SCC 394], Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited to distinguish between parole and furlough.
• Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration [CITATION: (1980) 3 SCC 488], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that prisoners retain fundamental rights, though restricted by imprisonment.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [CITATION: (1978) 1 SCC 248], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that prisoners retain fundamental rights, though restricted by imprisonment.
• Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jai, Tihar, New Delhi [CITATION: (1978) 4 SCC 104], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that prisoners retain fundamental rights, though restricted by imprisonment.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA): The court considered the fact that the appellant was convicted under this act.
• Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958: The court noted that the Advisory Committee rejected the application based on this rule.
• Central Government Rules of 1955 regarding parole: The court noted that these rules are basic and require updating.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. The Court noted that parole is a humanistic approach. It allows prisoners to maintain family and social ties. The Court also considered the need to protect society from habitual offenders.

The Court highlighted that a conviction for a serious crime does not automatically make a person a hardened criminal. The Court also noted that the authorities must consider whether the convict shows signs of reform.

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that a serious crime is an automatic bar to parole. The Court emphasized that the authorities must consider various factors. These include the convict’s conduct, potential for reform, and the threat to society.

The Court also noted that the Central Government Rules of 1955 are outdated. It called for an update to include comprehensive guidelines for parole.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“Mere nature of the offence committed by him should not be a factor to deny the parole outrightly.”

“Wherever a person convicted has suffered incarceration for a long time, he can be granted temporary parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for which he was sentenced.”

“The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction under TADA does not automatically disqualify a person from parole.
• The nature of the crime is not the sole factor in deciding parole applications.
• Authorities must consider reformation, rehabilitation, and the need to maintain family and social ties.
• The Central Government Rules of 1955 regarding parole need to be updated.
• Parole is a humanistic approach aimed at reintegrating prisoners into society.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India. This is to ensure that the Central Government Rules of 1955 are updated.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under TADA, or any serious offense, does not automatically disqualify a convict from being granted parole. The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of parole is to facilitate the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners, and to maintain their social and family ties. This judgment emphasizes that the nature of the offense is not the sole factor to be considered, and that authorities must assess each case on its merits, taking into account the prisoner’s conduct, potential for reform, and any threat they may pose to society. This decision alters the previous understanding where serious offenses were often seen as automatic bars to parole.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, but clarified that a TADA conviction is not an automatic bar to parole. The Court emphasized the importance of reformation and rehabilitation. It also directed the Central Government to update its parole rules. The Court acknowledged the adverse reports against Asfaq. However, it stated that he could renew his parole request in the future.