The Delhi High Court has held that the denial of parole to perform last rites of father would violate the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also observed that to deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.

The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “In the present case, the petitioner has to attend the final rites/“Tehravi” of his deceased father and he seeks grant of parole for 02 months on this ground…The right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. . The Court is mindful of the fact that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature, but to deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.”

Advocate Rajbir Singh Bal represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Amol Sinha represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

A Writ was filed seeking grant of emergency parole to the Petitioner for a period of two months, to enable him to perform the last rites of his deceased father. The Petitioner was convicted under Sections 376/354B/506 IPC and Section 66E of IT Act and was sentenced fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment.

It was submitted by the Petitioner that his father passed away, and he being the eldest son, was required to perform the last rites and customary rituals of his late father.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court underscored that the parole was an established facet aimed at enabling a convict to maintain family and social ties and to discharge essential obligations.

“The right to perform last rites of a parent is an essential religious and moral duty. Denial of parole in such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.

The Delhi High Court opined that to deny parole in existence of a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.

Accordingly, the Petition was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks.

Cause Title: Ajmer Singh Alias Pinka V. The State of NCT, Delhi

Click here to read/download Order

Delhi High CourtJustice Ravinder Dudeja

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.