Ajmer Singh alias Pinka v. The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Kanjhawala, 2025
The Court's approach aligns with progressive parole jurisprudence, recognizing that incarceration does not strip a person of their basic human obligations, especially those of religious and familial nature.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
30 September 2025
Judges
Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, Ajmer Singh, was convicted in a 2018 rape case and sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,70,000.
-
He is currently lodged in Tihar Jail, having undergone about 1 year 9 months and 15 days of incarceration, excluding remission.
-
His father passed away on September 19, 2025 due to a heart attack.
-
Ajmer Singh, being the eldest son, sought two months of emergency parole to perform the last rites and religious ceremonies of his deceased father.
-
He had not availed parole or furlough during his sentence, and his jail conduct was noted as ‘Satisfactory’ in the Nominal Roll.
Issues
-
Whether denial of parole to perform a parent’s last rites violates the right to dignity under Article 21?
-
Whether a convict in a serious offence (rape) can be granted parole on humanitarian grounds?
-
Does "mechanical application" of parole rules defeat the purpose of parole jurisprudence?
Judgement
-
The Delhi High Court granted four weeks’ parole to Ajmer Singh.
-
The Court emphasized that: “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 acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, but stressed that: “To deny parole on a humanitarian ground would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying parole jurisprudence.”
-
It recognized that parole is not a right, but an important correctional and rehabilitative tool to maintain family and social ties, and allow a convict to fulfil essential obligations.
Held
-
The petition was allowed.
-
Ajmer Singh was granted parole for 4 weeks from the date of release.
-
The Court ordered his release under suitable terms and conditions to be imposed by the Jail Superintendent.
Analysis
- This ruling reinforces the constitutional value of human dignity, especially in personal and religious contexts such as performing a parent's last rites.
- The Delhi High Court struck a balance between public interest and personal liberty, upholding the idea that even convicts retain certain fundamental rights.
- The Court's approach aligns with progressive parole jurisprudence, recognizing that incarceration does not strip a person of their basic human obligations, especially those of religious and familial nature.
- By condemning mechanical application of rules, the Court emphasized the need for context-sensitive, compassionate decision-making within the criminal justice system.