Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 274
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a convict’s time spent on parole be counted towards their total sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important question in a case originating from Haryana. The court clarified that, according to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, time spent on parole will not be included when calculating the actual time a prisoner has served. This judgment settles the issue in Haryana, aligning with previous rulings on the matter. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
Anil Kumar, the petitioner, was convicted for offenses under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was granted emergency parole by the High-Powered Committee, constituted as per the Supreme Court’s orders in Suo-Moto W.P. (C) No. 1/2020. The petitioner challenged the decision of the High-Powered Committee, which stated that the period of release on interim parole would not be counted towards the total sentence.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Undisclosed Date | Petitioner convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. |
| Undisclosed Date | Conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. |
| 23.03.2020 | Supreme Court orders the constitution of a High-Powered Committee in Suo-Moto W.P. (C) No. 1/2020. |
| 12.11.2020 | High-Powered Committee observes that no specific directions are needed regarding the counting of special parole towards the sentence, referring to statutory provisions. |
| 09.05.2021 | High-Powered Committee decides that the period of release on interim parole shall not be counted towards the total sentence. |
| 24.03.2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the writ petition, upholding that parole period is not counted towards the total sentence. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner, Anil Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the High-Powered Committee. The committee had decided that the period of release on interim parole should not be counted towards the total sentence. The petitioner argued that since his release was due to the committee’s decision and not under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the parole period should be counted. The State of Haryana argued that Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, explicitly states that parole periods should not be counted towards the total sentence and that the High-Powered Committee’s decision was in line with this statutory provision.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework in this case is the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Specifically, Section 3(3) of the Act states:
“Section 3(3): The period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.”
This provision clearly stipulates that any period of temporary release, including parole, shall not be included when calculating the total time a prisoner has served. This provision was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner was released on emergency parole due to the High-Powered Committee’s decision, not under Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
- The High-Powered Committee’s decision to exclude parole time from the sentence is incorrect.
- Other states count parole time towards the total sentence.
- If the parole period is not counted, it would extend the petitioner’s time to be eligible for remission, which is detrimental to his interest.
State of Haryana’s Arguments:
- The petitioner was convicted for serious offenses under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
- The petitioner was released on emergency parole as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the directions of the High-Powered Committee.
- Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, clearly states that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence.
- The High-Powered Committee’s decision aligns with the statutory provisions of the Act, 1988.
- The Supreme Court in Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 16) has held that parole period should not be counted towards the total period of sentence.
- The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18, stating that the period of temporary release can be denied while counting the actual sentence.
- The Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394 has held that the period of parole should not be counted towards the total period of sentence.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Petitioner) | Sub-Submission (State of Haryana) |
|---|---|---|
| Parole Period Calculation | Parole release was due to the High-Powered Committee, not the Act, so it should be counted. | Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, clearly states parole should not be counted. |
| High-Powered Committee Decision | The committee’s decision to exclude parole time is incorrect. | The committee’s decision aligns with statutory provisions. |
| Remission | Not counting parole extends the time to be eligible for remission. | The petitioner has to undergo the sentence as per law. |
| Precedents | Other states count parole time towards the total sentence. | Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 3(3) in Avtar Singh and has held that parole should not be counted in Mohinder Singh and Rohan Dhungat. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a convict/prisoner who has been released on temporary parole/emergency parole, pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee constituted as per the orders passed by this Court in SWM (C) No. 1/2020, such parole period shall be counted towards the total period of sentence of the convict – prisoner?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether parole period should be counted towards the total sentence? | The Court held that the parole period should not be counted towards the total sentence. The Court relied on Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which explicitly states that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence. The Court also cited its previous judgments in Avtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Rohan Dhungat, which upheld this position. |
Authorities
Cases Cited by the Court:
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How the Court used the Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18 | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. | The Court relied on this case to affirm the validity of Section 3(3) which allows for the exclusion of parole time from the total sentence. |
| State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394 | Supreme Court of India | Parole period should not be counted towards the total period of sentence. | The Court cited this case to support its view that time spent on parole does not count towards the total sentence. |
| Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 16) | Supreme Court of India | Period of release on parole shall not be counted for the purpose of considering the actual imprisonment. | The Court relied on this recent judgment to reiterate that parole period should be excluded from the calculation of actual imprisonment. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988: This provision states that the period of temporary release shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s argument that parole was granted by the High-Powered Committee and not under the Act, so it should be counted. | Rejected. The Court held that regardless of the source of the parole, Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, applies, and parole time cannot be counted. |
| Petitioner’s argument that other states count parole time towards the total sentence. | Not considered relevant. The Court focused on the specific statutory provisions of Haryana and the precedents set by the Supreme Court. |
| State’s argument that Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, clearly states parole should not be counted. | Accepted. The Court upheld the validity of Section 3(3) and its application to the case. |
| State’s reliance on previous Supreme Court judgments in Avtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Rohan Dhungat. | Accepted. The Court relied on these precedents to support its decision that parole should not be counted towards the total sentence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18: The Court relied on this case to affirm the constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which allows for the exclusion of parole time from the total sentence.
- State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394: The Court cited this case to support its view that time spent on parole does not count towards the total sentence.
- Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 16): The Court relied on this recent judgment to reiterate that parole period should be excluded from the calculation of actual imprisonment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear statutory provision in Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, and the consistent line of precedents upholding this provision. The Court emphasized that the purpose of parole is to provide temporary release, and it does not equate to serving the sentence. The court also noted that if parole periods were to be included in the sentence, it would defeat the purpose of actual imprisonment. The Court’s reasoning focused on the legislative intent behind the Act and the need for consistency in the application of the law.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Statutory Compliance (Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988) | 40% |
| Precedent Adherence (Avtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, Rohan Dhungat) | 35% |
| Purpose of Parole (Temporary release, not sentence reduction) | 20% |
| Consistency and legislative intent | 5% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that the petitioner’s release was based on the High-Powered Committee’s decision but rejected it, stating that the statutory provision of Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, applies regardless of the source of the parole. The Court also considered the argument about remission but held that the petitioner has to undergo the sentence as per the law. The Court upheld the High-Powered Committee’s decision as it aligned with the statutory provisions and the established legal position.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from Rohan Dhungat (supra):
“10.If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment. We are of the firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court holding so.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous. There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
✓ In Haryana, the period of parole will not be counted towards the total sentence of a convict.
✓ This decision reaffirms the validity of Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
✓ The judgment aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings on the matter, ensuring consistency in the application of the law.
✓ This clarification will impact how sentences are calculated for prisoners in Haryana, ensuring that parole periods are excluded from the actual imprisonment term.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the period of parole shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner in Haryana. This judgment does not introduce a new position of law but reinforces the existing legal position as established by Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, and affirmed by previous Supreme Court judgments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the period of parole should not be counted towards the total sentence of a convict in Haryana. The Court relied on Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, and previous Supreme Court judgments to support its decision. This judgment clarifies the law in Haryana, ensuring that parole periods are excluded when calculating actual imprisonment.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Sentencing
- Parole
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988
- Section 3(3), Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988
- Life Imprisonment
- Supreme Court Judgments
FAQ
Q: Does time spent on parole count towards my prison sentence in Haryana?
A: No, according to the Supreme Court, time spent on parole is not counted towards your total prison sentence in Haryana.
Q: What law says that parole doesn’t count towards the sentence in Haryana?
A: Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, states that the period of temporary release (parole) shall not be counted towards the total period of the sentence.
Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on this issue before?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has previously upheld the validity of this provision in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and has held that parole should not be counted towards the total period of sentence in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh and Rohan Dhungat Etc. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc.
Q: What if I was released on parole due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
A: Even if your parole was granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the time spent on parole will not be counted towards your total sentence in Haryana.
Q: What is the practical impact of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that prisoners in Haryana will have to serve their full sentence excluding the time they spend on parole. This ensures that parole is not used to reduce the actual time spent in prison.