Parole Is for Convicts, Not Saints – Denial Based Solely on Conviction Defeats the Purpose of Correctional Law: Karnataka High Court

“Every parole application must be evaluated on risk, not prejudice – Conviction cannot be the sole ground for rejection” –  In a powerful reaffirmation of the corrective and humanitarian purpose behind parole, the Karnataka High Court directed the release of a convict on 30-day general parole to assist in the renovation of his dilapidated family home, slamming prison authorities for mechanical rejection of parole based solely on the prisoner’s past conviction.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, delivering judgment in Radhamma v. State of Karnataka & Another, observed that “Parole is not granted to persons with a clean record outside prison – it exists precisely for convicts.” The Court held that the police report, which merely referred to the petitioner’s conviction under POCSO and IPC Section 376(2)(i), failed to address the real question: whether parole would lead to harm, re-offending, or disruption of public order.

“Parole is a correctional concession, not a legal right – but once eligibility is met, rejection must be based on clear, cogent reasoning”

The petitioner, Radhamma, mother of Srinivasa (CTP No.01440), had sought parole for her son to oversee the renovation of their home, which was in a dangerous state of disrepair. Srinivasa, serving a 10-year sentence under POCSO and IPC Section 376(2)(i), had already completed over two years of incarceration, with no adverse conduct reported in prison.

Her request for 30-day general parole was rejected by authorities, citing only the nature of his conviction. This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the denial as arbitrary, non-speaking, and contrary to the Karnataka Prisoners and Correctional Services Manual, 2021.

Justice Govindaraj held that the denial lacked application of mind, particularly since the very purpose of parole is to permit temporary release of convicted prisoners – not those with unblemished criminal records.

“The report furnished by the District Superintendent of Police is completely inadequate and perfunctory. It does not make out any case for denial. Parole is by definition meant for convicts – not those outside prison. To reject parole on the sole ground of conviction defeats the object of correctional jurisprudence.”

“Construction and repair of home is a valid and listed ground for general parole under Regulation 636(v)”

The Court meticulously examined Regulations 635 to 638 of the 2021 Manual, which define the objective, eligibility, and procedure for parole. It noted that Regulation 636(v) explicitly lists “construction and repair of home” as a valid ground for general parole.

Justice Govindaraj emphasized that: “The object of parole is not merely compassion, but rehabilitation – to maintain continuity of social relationships and give the prisoner hope and purpose. When the rule itself includes home renovation as a legitimate reason, rejection without proper analysis is indefensible.”

“Police report must examine potential for harm, flight risk, or re-offending – not just reproduce conviction history”

Crucially, the Court condemned the format and content of the police report, which was supposed to assess risk factors. Instead, it merely cited Srinivasa’s conviction without evaluating whether:

• His release posed a threat to the victim or witnesses

• There was any likelihood of absconding

• There was a risk of re-offending

• The prisoner himself might be in danger

Calling the report “perfunctory,” the Court held:

“There is no reference whatsoever to any threat, risk, or specific objection. In the absence of any adverse prison conduct and with valid ground under Regulation 636(v), the parole should have been considered favourably.”

“Digital reform of parole system is overdue – Manual must not operate as dead text”

Beyond the individual case, the Court took administrative cognizance of the systemic failures in the Karnataka parole framework, observing that the Director General of Prisons often fails to pass timely or reasoned orders, with most applications being rejected mechanically on the basis of vague police reports.

The Court issued structural directions:

• The Director General of Police (Police IT) was ordered to submit a detailed proposal within 4 weeks for e-enabling the entire parole process, from application to disposal.

• A public dashboard must be created showing number of applications filed, disposed, reasons for rejection, and pendency to ensure transparency.

• The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Prisons were directed to prepare structured report formats and train officials to assess parole requests based on objective criteria.

Justice Govindaraj warned:

“It is time to bring the parole system into the 21st century. Applications are still processed manually, families must travel physically, and no data is available in public domain. Reform is not optional – it is necessary.”

“Parole granted – convict to be released on 30-day general parole from 18.10.2025”

Having found the rejection unsustainable in law and fact, the Court granted the relief sought and passed the following operative directions:

“Respondent No.2 – Chief Superintendent is directed to release Srinivasa (CTP No.01440) on parole for a period of 30 days commencing from 18.10.2025.”

The conditions imposed include:

• Weekly attendance at the local police station

• Strict monitoring by the jurisdictional police to ensure the convict returns to prison after the parole period

• The State may impose additional conditions to prevent absconding or re-offending

The Registry was directed to communicate the operative order immediately, without waiting for the full judgment.

The judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of rehabilitative justice over retributive instincts. By asserting that conviction cannot itself be a barrier to parole, the Court re-centres the human dignity of prisoners, and revives the spirit of progressive correctional law.

Justice Govindaraj’s ruling also sets in motion critical reforms in the Karnataka prison administration, pushing for digitalisation, accountability, and transparency in parole governance.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025