Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional

“A prisoner does not cease to be a rights-bearing individual merely because he is incarcerated – poverty cannot be a disqualifier for liberty”, Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, in a landmark decision authored by Justice Farjand Ali, ruled that parole granted to a convict cannot be rendered meaningless by imposing surety conditions which the prisoner, due to proven poverty, is unable to fulfill. In Khartaram v. State of Rajasthan, the Court categorically held that the repeated insistence by parole authorities on surety bonds, despite prior judicial waivers and clear evidence of indigence, amounts to a "constructive denial of parole" and violates the fundamental rights of prisoners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

“This offends the core constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 and the guarantee of dignity implicit in Article 21,” declared the Court, cautioning that “economic incapacity cannot be a constitutionally valid basis for hostile discrimination against the have-nots vis-à-vis the haves.”

The case, initiated through a jail letter sent by the convict himself, marked the fourth time the petitioner, serving life imprisonment for murder since 2014, had to approach the Court solely because the authorities once again imposed the same surety condition that had already been waived three times earlier by this very Court.

“Parole Is Not a Privilege for the Solvent – It Is a Constitutional Tool for Rehabilitation, Not a Bureaucratic Trap”

The Court began its judgment by noting the disturbing pattern in Khartaram’s case. “It reveals a persistent and deeply troubling pattern… the convict-prisoner has been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for no reason other than his poverty and inability to furnish surety,” observed Justice Farjand Ali. Despite three prior judicial orders waiving the requirement of furnishing sureties, the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali, repeated the very same condition — two sureties of ₹25,000 each along with a personal bond — effectively barring the petitioner from availing his sanctioned parole.

The Court found this behaviour reflective of “disturbing institutional apathy to the rule of law” and termed the parole authority’s insistence as a “sheer mechanical approach” that disregarded both prior court orders and the ground realities of the prisoner’s indigence.

“This is not merely an administrative lapse — it is a constitutional failure. Parole sanctioned but made unavailable is nothing but a mirage,” the judgment asserted.

“Parole Is a Reformative Measure, Not an Executive Largesse – Authorities Cannot Erect Financial Barriers Against Liberty”

Justice Farjand Ali forcefully reaffirmed that parole is a “reformative and humanitarian measure” and not a discretionary favour granted to those who can afford it. He observed, “Parole is not and cannot be a privilege of the solvent. If it is to serve its humanitarian purpose and legitimacy as an instrument of reform and reintegration, the prisoner’s financial incapacity must never be allowed to operate as a disqualifier.”

Relying on the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, particularly Rules 4, 6, 8 and 10, the Court held that the power to impose surety is discretionary — not mandatory. “The Rule vests power in the Parole Committee to impose conditions but is not a mandate… to necessarily impose and/or insist upon the condition of surety bonds in every case.”

Further, the Court drew upon the precedent set by the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat, quoting its emphatic declaration:
“Poverty is no crime… In an egalitarian society where justice is promised to the poor and the rich alike, there is no scope for a law which virtually keeps out a penurious person from the benefit of the law for reason of his impecuniousness.”

The High Court held that insistence on sureties in such circumstances “becomes an instrument of oppression and exclusion,” and warned that such conduct amounts to a systemic denial of fundamental rights.

“Release on Personal Bond Is Not an Act of Charity – It Is a Mandate of the Constitution”

In a scathing critique of the parole authority’s conduct, the Court remarked that “constructive denial of parole, under the guise of impossible conditions, is legally unsustainable, constitutionally impermissible and morally indefensible.”

Citing Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Court reiterated that prisoners remain citizens entitled to constitutional protections. “The prisoner may be behind bars, but his rights are not. Economic incapacity cannot be allowed to translate into legal invisibility,” the Court observed.

The repeated requirement of furnishing sureties despite three High Court waivers was described as a form of “administrative cruelty” that humiliates the prisoner for his poverty. The judgment made it clear: “Parole, once granted, cannot be made a tool of repeated indignity and systemic humiliation.”

“To Deny Parole on Grounds of Indigence Is to Make Liberty Conditional Upon Wealth – A Concept Alien to Our Constitution”

Accordingly, the Court modified the parole order and directed that the petitioner be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 only, waiving the requirement of sureties altogether. The judgment further went beyond the individual case and laid down binding guidelines for future parole cases involving indigent prisoners.

The Court directed that in cases where indigence is established, authorities must either waive surety requirements or record specific reasons for not doing so. “Discretion must be exercised not to frustrate liberty, but to facilitate it,” the Court held.

It further ordered the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to maintain a computerised database of such waivers so that future parole applications for such prisoners are not repeatedly subjected to the same procedural injustice. “Once a convict has been given a waiver of surety bond, it shall be the duty of the State and Legal Services Authority to ensure subsequent parole applications are supported and filed through legal aid,” the Court mandated.

In sum, the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment in Khartaram v. State of Rajasthan is a powerful reaffirmation that liberty cannot be held hostage to wealth, and that executive discretion must always bow before constitutional rights. As the Court aptly concluded, “Release on personal bond in such cases is not an act of charity but of constitutional compliance.”

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026