Emergency Parole for Funeral Rites | Prisoner’s Right to Humanitarian Grounds Upheld Under Article 21 : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the human right of a convict to participate in the funeral rites of a deceased parent, directing the release of Jayaram on 15-day emergency parole to attend his mother's last rites. The judgment underscores that while incarceration restricts liberty, it does not extinguish fundamental familial obligations, provided the convict complies with strict supervisory conditions to prevent flight risk.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Smt. Sreelakshmi, wife of Jayaram (CTP No. 10789), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking emergency parole for her husband. Jayaram, a convict serving life imprisonment, sought parole to attend the funeral ceremonies and perform the last rites of his deceased mother, Smt. Anjanamma, who passed away on 19.06.2026. The Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru, rejected the request via email endorsement dated 21.06.2026 (Annexure-C), prompting the present petition.

Key Facts

• Conviction Details: Jayaram was convicted in Spl.C.No.139/2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tumkur, for offences under:
  • Section 376(2)(I) IPC (Rape)
  • Section 376(2)(f) IPC (Gang rape)
  • Section 376(2)(n) IPC (Repeated rape)
  • Section 506 IPC (Criminal intimidation)
  • Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault)
• Sentence: Life imprisonment, imposed on 05.11.2018. As of 27.06.2026, Jayaram had served 9 years, 6 months, and 10 days of his sentence.
• Parole Request: The petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.06.2026 (Annexure-D) seeking emergency parole for 15 days to attend the funeral rites.
• Rejection: The request was rejected via email endorsement dated 21.06.2026 by Respondent No. 2.

Procedural History

• 19.06.2026: Death of Jayaram’s mother, Smt. Anjanamma.
• 21.06.2026: Rejection of parole request by the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru via email.
• 24.06.2026: Representation submitted by the petitioner seeking emergency parole.
• 30.06.2026: Writ Petition (WP No. 19745 of 2026) filed before the Karnataka High Court.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Quashing of the email endorsement dated 21.06.2026 (Annexure-C) rejecting the parole request.
2. A Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to release Jayaram on 15-day emergency parole to attend the funeral rites.
3. Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a convict serving life imprisonment is entitled to emergency parole to attend the funeral rites of a deceased parent, and if so, under what conditions can such parole be granted without compromising the interests of justice or public safety.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Humanitarian Ground: The petitioner argued that attending the funeral rites of a deceased parent is a fundamental familial obligation and a human right, which should not be denied arbitrarily. The rejection of the parole request violated this right.
• No Flight Risk: The police report indicated no evidence suggesting the petitioner or the convict posed a flight risk. The petitioner emphasized that the sole purpose of the parole was to perform religious rites, with no intention to evade custody.
• Judicial Precedents: Reliance was placed on judgments such as Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, where courts have recognized the right of convicts to attend familial ceremonies under supervised conditions.

For the Respondents

• Security Concerns: The respondents contended that granting parole to a convict serving life imprisonment for heinous offences under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act posed a risk to public safety. They argued that the convict’s release could embolden other inmates to seek similar reliefs on frivolous grounds.
• Administrative Discretion: The respondents submitted that the rejection of the parole request was an exercise of administrative discretion, and courts should not interfere unless the decision was arbitrary or mala fide.
• No Legal Entitlement: It was argued that emergency parole is not an absolute right and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances, which were not met in this case.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the balancing act between the humanitarian considerations of the convict and the security concerns of the state. Key observations included:

1. Humanitarian Grounds: The Court acknowledged that while incarceration restricts liberty, it does not extinguish fundamental human obligations, such as attending the funeral rites of a deceased parent. The rejection of the parole request was deemed arbitrary in the absence of any evidence suggesting a flight risk or threat to public safety.

2. Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that convicts are entitled to temporary release for compelling familial reasons, provided adequate safeguards are in place. The Court also distinguished cases where parole was denied due to security risks, noting that no such risks were evident here.

3. Police Report: The Court noted that the police report did not indicate any flight risk or threat posed by the petitioner or the convict. This absence of adverse material weighed heavily in favor of granting the parole.

4. Conditions for Parole: The Court emphasized that emergency parole must be granted under strict conditions to ensure the convict’s return to custody. These conditions included:

   • Weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station.
   • Responsibility of the police to ensure the convict’s return to prison after the parole period.
   • Strict stipulations by the state to prevent commission of offences during parole.

"The presence of the detenu is required for performance of the death ritual ceremony. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow the petition subject to conditions."

The Verdict

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru, to release Jayaram on 15-day emergency parole commencing from 01.07.2026, subject to the following conditions:

1. Attendance Requirement: Jayaram must mark his attendance at the jurisdictional police station weekly once throughout the parole period.
2. Police Responsibility: The jurisdictional police shall ensure Jayaram’s return to prison. If he evades custody, the police shall be responsible for his re-arrest and return.
3. State Stipulations: The State of Karnataka shall impose strict conditions to ensure Jayaram does not commit any offences during the parole period.
4. Immediate Execution: The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authorities for immediate execution without insisting on a certified copy.
5. Compliance: The petitioner and Jayaram’s family members must comply with all formalities before the release date.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Emergency Parole Is Not Absolute but Not Arbitrarily Deniable

• Courts will scrutinize rejections of parole requests, especially when based on humanitarian grounds like funeral rites. Arbitrary rejections without evidence of flight risk or public safety concerns are likely to be overturned.
• Practitioners should emphasize judicial precedents like Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India to argue for parole in compelling familial situations.

Strict Conditions Are Non-Negotiable

• Supervisory mechanisms (e.g., weekly police attendance) are mandatory for granting parole. Courts will not hesitate to impose stringent conditions to mitigate risks.
• The burden of compliance rests on the convict and their family. Failure to adhere to conditions (e.g., evading custody) will result in immediate re-arrest and potential contempt proceedings.

Police and Prison Authorities Must Act Expeditiously

• The judgment underscores the duty of prison authorities to act on court orders without delay. Insisting on certified copies when an uploaded order suffices may attract adverse observations.

• Communication of orders to relevant authorities (e.g., police, prison) must be immediate to avoid unnecessary litigation.

• Key Takeaways for Practitioners:

  • Always highlight humanitarian grounds (e.g., funeral rites, medical emergencies) in parole applications.
  • Underscore the absence of flight risk in police reports or affidavits.
  • Propose strict conditions (e.g., police supervision, surety bonds) to preempt security concerns.
  • Challenge arbitrary rejections of parole requests by citing this judgment and Sunil Fulchand Shah.