Delhi High Court Orders Home Confinement In Parole Extension Plea; Directs Framework For Convicts Unable To Surrender Due To Age Or Medical Incapacity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan directed that an aged, bedridden convict be kept in home confinement under supervision until her request for premature release is decided, after finding that she is medically incapable of surrendering to prison custody. The Court held that her condition prevented further lawful extension of parole and required an alternative arrangement. It also directed the State Authorities to frame rules addressing situations where convicts cannot return to prison after the expiry of parole or furlough because of age-related or medical incapacitation, noting that such individuals risk remaining in legal limbo while awaiting decisions on premature release.
The petition was filed under Article 226 seeking grant or extension of parole for twelve months on the basis of the petitioner’s medical condition. The petitioner, along with her husband and son, had been convicted for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Her appeal was dismissed and the special leave petition was rejected thereafter. Her son predeceased her, and her husband died in jail.
The record states that she fell in prison in 2017 and sustained severe injuries, leading to surgeries at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital, after which she was placed on strict bed rest. She was initially granted parole on medical grounds and thereafter received multiple extensions due to her inability to walk or carry out daily functions. A Status Report indicated that the petitioner was bedridden and unable to perform day-to-day activities without assistance. Jail records showed that she had spent a little over four years of the seven-year sentence.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that owing to her declining medical condition and advanced age of 81 years, she was not in a position to surrender. The State submitted that Rule 1246A of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 allows consideration of remission for incapacitated convicts above 70 years of age, subject to evaluation by a Medical Board and an Evaluation Committee. The State sought four weeks to examine premature release. An amicus curiae suggested four courses: evaluation under Rule 1246A, consideration of a pending clemency plea, examination of the Lieutenant Governor’s earlier recommendation, and confinement at home under supervision as adopted in certain High Court decisions for terminally ill prisoners.
The dispute before the Court therefore centered on whether parole could continue beyond the statutory cap, and if not, what alternative approach could be adopted for a convict unable to surrender due to medical incapacitation.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had been on parole since 2017 owing to “her age as well as her precarious medical condition,” and that she “continues to remain enlarged on parole after almost eight years of the liberty first being granted to her.” It noted that she sought a further extension of twelve months.
The Court said: “Such convicts are often required to stay outside beyond the permissible period for reasons that are outside their control. As noted above, as the permissible period of parole can only be up to a maximum of sixteen weeks, it is incumbent on the appropriate authorities to frame rules covering such exigencies or to amend the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 providing for extension of parole or furlough, as the case may be.”
The Court reiterated the meaning of parole under Rule 1198, stating that it denotes “a temporary release awarded to a prisoner for a short period so that he may maintain societal relations with his family and community in order to fulfil his familial and societal obligations.” It recorded that parole “is not a legal right, it is a privilege,” and that it is “a grant of partial liberty or lessening of restrictions to a convict prisoner, but release on parole does not change the status of the prisoner.”
The Court noted that Rules 1212 and 1212A limit parole to eight weeks, extendable by another eight weeks only in situations such as “threat of epidemic, natural disaster or any other situation or circumstances which warrant immediate easing of population of the inmates in the prison.” It held that the Court cannot “rewrite the Rules or fundamentally change the same by extending the liberty beyond the prescribed duration.”
At the same time, the Court observed that the petitioner is “bedridden and she is not in a position to move or surrender.” It stated that it “cannot be so inhumane so as to adopt a callous approach,” stating that punishment “cannot be one which defiles the dignity of an inmate.”
The Court recorded the four options suggested by the amicus, including premature release under Rule 1246A, the pending clemency plea, examination of the Lieutenant Governor’s recommendation, and temporary confinement at home. It held that, regarding clemency, it was “not apposite to exercise judicial review before the concerned authorities have had the opportunity to examine the case.”
The Court noted that the petitioner’s state necessitated “adoption of an alternative approach which doesn’t relegate the petitioner to suffer incarceration till such time as her representation for premature release is considered.” It referred to the Calcutta and Madras High Court judgments, which held that in exceptional circumstances a convict could be kept confined at home.
Finally, the Court stated that in the present circumstances, home confinement “appears to be a cogent alternative,” and concluded that this arrangement should remain until her premature release is decided.
The Court directed: “the petitioner be confined in her home under the care of her son–Tilak Raj… till such time when her case is considered for premature release. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of ₹10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. The petitioner shall not be permitted to leave her residence where she is currently residing, except for the purpose of her medical treatment.”
“The concerned authorities are directed to decide the case of the petitioner for premature release expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. This Court considers it appropriate to direct the State Authorities to frame appropriate rules to cater to such situations as in the present case where convicts, who are incapacitated by virtue of health or age, are not in a position to surrender even after lapse of the period of release on parole or furlough.”
“A copy of this order be sent to the Government of NCT of Delhi to take appropriate action in this regard. The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay the fees of the learned amicus curiae as per its scheduled rates and rules.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) for the State along with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Mr. Vijay Misra & Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocates; SI Dharmendra Sharma, PS Patel Nagar.
Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Amicus Curiae along with Mr. Agni Sen, Advocates
Case Title: Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9884
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1976/2025
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan
