Delhi High Court Orders Home Confinement for 81-Year-Old Convict Awaiting Clemency

“Conviction Doesn’t Strip Dignity; Jail Can’t Be a Graveyard for the Bedridden…..Parole is a Privilege, Not a Right—But Law Must Bend to Humanity Where Life Itself is at Risk” - Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Amit Mahajan,  ruled that an 81-year-old bedridden convict, suffering from multiple fractures and terminal immobility, could not be forced back into prison pending her application for premature release. The Court held that while Article 226 jurisdiction does not empower it to rewrite statutory prison rules, it cannot ignore the realities of human suffering, and consequently ordered her to remain confined at home under strict supervision. The case raised compelling questions about the limits of parole, the State’s obligation to consider premature release for incapacitated convicts, and the systemic vacuum in law when old age meets punishment.

The Court observed emphatically, “This Court cannot be so inhumane so as to adopt a callous approach which is blind and unfeeling to the plight of an aged woman, who is already suffering from a myriad of ailments.” It noted that conviction and imprisonment cannot “defile the dignity of an inmate,” particularly when the State itself is incapable of providing round-the-clock medical care inside the prison system.

“Parole Is Temporary Release, Not Remission of Sentence”: Court Declines Indefinite Extension, Citing Statutory Limits

The petitioner, Kailash Wati, convicted under Sections 498A/304B IPC, had been on parole continuously since October 2017, after a fall in prison resulted in a severe hip fracture requiring multiple surgeries. Since then, her health steadily declined, and she remained completely bedridden, dependent on an attendant. Although she had served over four years of her seven-year sentence, she was unable to surrender due to her medical condition and thus sought a 12-month extension of parole.

The Court made it clear that parole is neither automatic nor limitless. Citing Rules 1198, 1212, and 1212A of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the Court stated:

“Parole is not a legal right, it is a privilege conferred on a prisoner... It is a provisional release from confinement but is deemed to be a part of the imprisonment.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s observation in Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 347, the Court reiterated that parole is “not a concession towards the sentence but a wing of the reformative process,” and extending it beyond the statutory 16-week cap would amount to judicial legislation. “Courts have no power to legislate and cannot rewrite the rules or fundamentally change them by extending liberty beyond what is prescribed,” the judgment observed.

Yet, the Court balanced this restraint with compassion, stating: “The petitioner is not in a position to move or surrender... Punishment cannot be one which defiles the dignity of an inmate.”

“Premature Release for Incapacitated Convicts is Not Charity – It Is the Law”: Court Invokes Rule 1246A, Directs Expedited Evaluation

A turning point in the ruling came with the Court’s emphasis on Rule 1246A of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, introduced in 2024, which provides for premature release of convicts above 70 years who are unable to perform daily tasks and have served more than 50% of their sentence.

The Court stated that the petitioner “squarely falls within the age and medical criteria under Rule 1246A” and directed the Prison Department to evaluate her case within four weeks, noting that the rule was enacted to address exactly such situations.

It remarked, “Even though no formal application is required for premature release, the State is duty-bound to consider all eligible cases.”

The Court also clarified that while the petitioner’s clemency plea under Article 72, pending since 2018, reflected serious delay, it could not issue directions under Article 226 to compel a decision in the manner the Supreme Court could under Article 142, as observed in A.G. Perarivalan v. State, (2023) 8 SCC 257. The Court noted, “Judicial review of clemency delay is possible, but this Court refrains from exercising such jurisdiction at this stage.”

“Where Jail Can’t Offer Dignity, Home Becomes the Only Custody Possible”: Court Applies House Confinement as Humanitarian Custodial Alternative

Rejecting the indefinite extension of parole, yet recognising the petitioner’s inability to return to prison, the Court crafted a middle path rooted in judicial innovation. Citing the Supreme Court’s analysis of house arrest in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA, (2022) 13 SCC 542, as well as the Calcutta and Madras High Court rulings in In re: Overcrowding in Prisons and M. Rajeshwari v. ADGP, the Court held that home confinement was a permissible, albeit exceptional, custodial solution in situations of terminal illness or physical incapacity.

“In the absence of any provisions for extended release from custody for infirm and aged patients, home confinement appears to be a cogent alternative,” the Court said.

It ordered that the petitioner be “confined in her home under the care of her son” and barred from leaving except for medical treatment, subject to a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, to be supervised by the Jail Superintendent.

“Systemic Reform is Not Optional – It's Urgent”: Court Calls for Amendments in Prison Rules for Incapacitated Convicts

In a significant direction to the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Court observed that multiple convicts like the petitioner are trapped in a legal vacuum, where they cannot return to jail due to medical incapacity but are left legally stranded after their parole expires. Noting that the Delhi Prison Rules currently lack a mechanism to deal with such cases, the Court directed:

“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 in cases of incapacitated convicts.”

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Government for necessary action.

A Judgement That Humanises Justice Without Breaking the Law

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi marks a nuanced approach to constitutional rights in the context of prison jurisprudence. Without violating the statutory limits on parole or assuming clemency powers, the Court found a constitutionally permissible, morally compelling, and legally sound path in home confinement, while pushing the State to reform the rules to prevent such judicial improvisation from becoming the norm.

“While this Court does not propose that house arrest needs to be regularised... it is compelled to evolve an interim mechanism that reflects both law and humanity,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025