Denying parole over inability to pay surety is wealth-based discrimination: HC

Holding that parole must be “accessible in substance and not merely in form”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that imposing steep financial conditions — without assessing a convict’s economic capacity — amounts to discrimination based on wealth leading to social marginalisation. The ruling came in a case where a convict, granted parole on account of good conduct, was unable to avail the benefit due to the burden of furnishing surety bonds worth Rs 4 lakh.

“The imposition of onerous financial conditions upon a prisoner, without due consideration of his economic capacity, amounts to discrimination on the basis of wealth and results in social marginalization,” observed Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while adding that such an approach effectively transformed a constitutional right into a privilege accessible only to the economically advantaged individuals.

The observations came during the hearing of a petition challenging the conditions imposed while ordering warrant of temporary release dated January 31. The Bench was told that the petitioner was granted parole for 10 weeks in view of his good conduct. But the order stipulated that the release would be subject to the furnishing of two surety bonds of Rs 2 lakh each.

The petitioner submitted he had no surviving “immediate family member” to assist him in arranging the sureties. He approached the High Court seeking quashing of the impugned condition, contending that it was impossible for him to comply with it given his financial status.

Justice Brar held that parole, being a reformative tool, was required to be substantively accessible and not merely available in form. “Keeping any convict behind bars when they are otherwise eligible to be released on parole, merely for the reason of financial incapacity, is thoroughly unjustified in view of the constitutional spirit,” the Bench stated.

Justice Brar added the overarching aim of granting the concession of parole was to allow the convicts an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into the society. The opportunity ought to be available to all citizens in spite of their economic background.

After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court concluded: “The condition of furnishing two surety bonds for the amount of Rs 2 lakh each vide warrant of temporary release is arbitrary and disproportionate. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the said condition is hereby set aside. Further, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole granted to him, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 20, 000,” Justice Brar ordered.

Haryana Tribune