Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has directed the competent authority to consider and decide, within ten days, the pending parole application of a 68-year-old convicted prisoner suffering from gangrene — a condition that had already necessitated the amputation of a toe and posed an imminent risk of further amputation. Noting that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to timely and adequate medical treatment, the Court held that prolonged inaction on a parole application grounded in serious medical need is impermissible in law.

The writ petition was filed by a convicted prisoner seeking parole/leave to obtain medical treatment in a private hospital. The petitioner was undergoing a sentence affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, and his Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court had been dismissed, rendering the conviction final. During incarceration, the petitioner developed gangrene and was admitted to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital where one of his toes was amputated. Medical advice later indicated that the infection had spread further and that amputation of the legs might be required. Apprehending the line of treatment in the government hospital, the petitioner expressed a desire to obtain treatment in a private hospital of his choice.

Also Read: Arbitration | Party's Active Participation And Acquiescence In Proceedings Bars Belated Jurisdictional Challenge After Adverse Award: Supreme Court

The petitioner submitted an application seeking parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 for a period of ninety days to facilitate treatment in a private medical institution at his own expense. The application was forwarded by the jail authorities to the District Magistrate for consideration. However, no decision was taken on the application and it remained pending despite the petitioner’s medical condition.

The petitioner contended that the inaction of the authorities in deciding the parole application was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was a convicted prisoner and that parole was not a matter of right but subject to statutory rules and administrative satisfaction. It was stated that the application was under consideration and that necessary medical care was being provided within the prison framework.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 and recorded that “the prisoners shall be granted leave under sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :-- (a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act; (b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave; (c) The releasing authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest.” The Court further recorded the provisions relating to sanction of leave and noted that “if the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request for grant of leave can be granted without detriment to public interest, he shall issue to the Superintendent a duly signed and sealed warrant….”

The Bench considered the conditions governing the release of prisoners on leave and stated that “during the period of his leave, he shall not go to any place other than those places which have been mentioned in his leave application” and that “during his leave he shall neither commit any crime nor involve in any such act that may have its bearing on public interest.”

While considering the petitioner’s medical condition, the Court recorded that “the petitioner is suffering from a serious medical condition requiring urgent attention.” It further noted that “the medical documents placed on record indicate that he has already undergone amputation of a toe and is presently facing the risk of further amputation due to the spread of infection.”

The Court stated that “the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to timely and adequate medical treatment.” The Bench also observed that “though parole cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right, the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to consider and decide the petitioner’s application within a reasonable time, particularly when the same is founded on serious medical grounds.”

Upon examining the record, the Court noted that “the petitioner’s application for grant of parole for medical treatment in a private hospital has admittedly been forwarded to the competent authority but remains undecided.” The Court recorded that “such inaction, especially in matters concerning health and life, cannot be countenanced.”

Also Read: Scheduled Tribe Member Voluntarily Adopting Hindu Customs Cannot Be Denied Hindu Marriage Act Cover Merely On Grounds Of Tribal Exclusion: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court directed: “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for parole, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for grant of parole/leave strictly in accordance with law.” The authority must pass “a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate

Case Title: Dheluram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:10989-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 133 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal