The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the principle of equal treatment under law by quashing the denial of parole to two prisoners on the grounds that similarly situated individuals had already been granted identical relief by a coordinate bench. This judgment underscores that administrative discretion in parole matters cannot override established judicial precedent when facts and legal positions are materially identical.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Mohammed Shamsuddin and Mohd Aejaz Akbar, both inmates of Central Jail, Jaipur, sought regular parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 2018. Their applications for the 5th and 4th regular parole respectively were dismissed by the authorities on 03.02.2026 and 31.01.2026 without substantive reasoning. Both petitioners had served substantial portions of their sentences and met the eligibility criteria under the rules.
Key Facts
- Mohammed Shamsuddin, aged 56, is confined in Central Jail, Jaipur, after conviction in a criminal case originating from Karnataka
- Mohd Aejaz Akbar, also from Gulbarga, Karnataka, is similarly confined in the same jail
- Both petitioners had previously been granted parole in prior cycles, establishing a pattern of compliance and good conduct
- No allegations of misconduct, flight risk, or threat to public order were raised against either petitioner by the jail authorities or the State
- The dismissals were based on generic administrative grounds without individualized assessment
Procedural History
- 31.01.2026: Application for 4th regular parole by Mohd Aejaz Akbar was dismissed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur
- 03.02.2026: Application for 5th regular parole by Mohammed Shamsuddin was similarly dismissed
- 17.03.2026: Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in Fazlur Rehman Sufi Alias Shamin & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 294/2026, granted 40-day parole to similarly situated prisoners, quashing identical denials
- 12.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 438/2026 filed by Mohammed Shamsuddin challenging his dismissal
- 15.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 358/2026 filed by Mohd Aejaz Akbar challenging his dismissal
- 21.05.2026: Hearing before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the parole denial orders dated 03.02.2026 and 31.01.2026, and directed grant of 40-day regular parole with conditions, in line with the precedent set in Fazlur Rehman Sufi.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the denial of parole to petitioners, who were identically situated to those granted relief by a coordinate bench, violates the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of consistency in judicial administration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the refusal to grant parole in the present cases, despite a binding precedent from a coordinate bench granting identical relief to similarly placed prisoners, amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. Reliance was placed on Fazlur Rehman Sufi to demonstrate that the legal and factual matrix was indistinguishable. The absence of any new adverse circumstance justified the application of stare decisis.
For the Respondent
The Additional Solicitor General conceded that the petitioners were similarly situated to those in Fazlur Rehman Sufi and could not dispute the binding nature of the coordinate bench’s order. No new grounds were advanced to justify differential treatment, and no public interest or security concern was substantiated.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench observed that the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 is not a mere formality but a substantive constitutional imperative. The Court emphasized that administrative decisions, even in matters of parole, must conform to judicial precedent when the factual matrix is identical.
"Where a coordinate Bench has laid down a clear legal position in favour of similarly situated prisoners, and no supervening circumstance or material change in facts is brought to notice, denial of the same relief to another prisoner on identical grounds amounts to arbitrariness and violates the mandate of equality."
The Court noted that the State did not contest the applicability of the precedent, nor did it produce any evidence to distinguish the present cases. The dismissal orders were therefore found to be legally unsustainable. The Court further held that the grant of parole is not a privilege to be withheld capriciously, but a statutory right subject to reasonable conditions.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The orders dated 03.02.2026 and 31.01.2026 were quashed and set aside. The petitioners are granted 40-day regular parole, commencing from the date of their release. Each petitioner must furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two solvent sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions imposed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. They are directed to surrender back to custody upon expiry of the parole period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parole Denials Must Be Justified by New Facts
- Practitioners must challenge parole denials where no new adverse facts are presented, citing Fazlur Rehman Sufi as binding precedent
- Administrative authorities cannot rely on generic or boilerplate reasons to deny parole when a coordinate bench has already granted identical relief
- Any refusal must be accompanied by a reasoned order distinguishing the case on material grounds
Coordinate Bench Precedents Are Binding in Practice
- Even if not technically binding under stare decisis, coordinate bench rulings on identical facts create a de facto standard of fairness
- Courts will intervene where differential treatment lacks justification, invoking Article 14 to enforce consistency
- This judgment strengthens the position of prisoners’ counsel in arguing for uniform application of parole rules across similar cases
Procedural Fairness in Parole Decisions
- Parole decisions must be individualized, not mechanical
- The absence of a written order with reasons renders the denial vulnerable to judicial review
- Jail authorities must document and communicate the basis for denial, especially when precedent exists
