Parole Rights of Convicts: Supreme Court Rules on Terror Convict’s Appeal

The case of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan & Others revolves around the denial of parole to a convict sentenced under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a person convicted of a serious crime, including terrorism-related charges, could be outrightly denied parole.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Asfaq, was convicted under TADA for his role in the 1993 serial train bomb blasts, which were allegedly carried out on the first anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. The prosecution argued that Asfaq had supplied explosives to another accused for monetary gain. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the CBI Court on February 28, 2004, and his conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Seeking parole, Asfaq submitted an application to the District Parole Advisory Committee in 2014, which was rejected on the grounds that parole for TADA prisoners was beyond its jurisdiction. He challenged this rejection in the Rajasthan High Court, which directed the authorities to reconsider the application. However, the parole request was again denied based on the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958, which disallowed parole for TADA convicts. His subsequent parole requests to the Central Government and the Rajasthan State Government were also rejected, citing adverse reports from the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and Social Justice Department.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments (Asfaq):

• Conviction under a serious offense should not be the sole ground for rejecting parole.
• Parole is granted to convicts based on reformation and social reintegration, not just the nature of their crime.
• He had already served over ten years in prison, and his conduct during incarceration had been satisfactory.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Rajasthan & Others):

• The parole request was denied based on adverse reports from law enforcement and prison authorities.
• There was a risk that his release would disturb public order and lead to violence.
• He could potentially threaten witnesses who testified against him.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan ruled that the rejection of parole must be based on valid grounds and not just the gravity of the offense. The key points from the judgment were:

• “The conviction in a serious and heinous crime cannot be the reason for denying parole per se.”
• The Court criticized the Rajasthan High Court for refusing to consider the matter and instead directing the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
• The purpose of parole is reformation and maintaining social ties, and each case should be considered on its own merits.
• While Asfaq’s conduct in jail was satisfactory, the Court acknowledged that adverse reports about public safety concerns justified denying parole at this stage.
• The appellant could renew his parole request in the future if the prevailing conditions improved.

Important Extract from the Judgment:

“The parole program should be used as a tool to shape adjustments, ensuring that offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reintegrate into society are given a fair opportunity.”

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies that parole cannot be denied solely based on the severity of the crime. However, the Court upheld the denial of parole in this case due to security concerns. The decision strikes a balance between penal reform and public safety, reaffirming the importance of fair consideration in parole applications.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-09-2017.pdf