The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the state cannot impose financially prohibitive surety conditions for parole when the prisoner is indigent, reinforcing that access to conditional liberty must not be contingent on economic status. This ruling strengthens the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 by ensuring procedural fairness in parole administration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shakti Singh, an indigent prisoner lodged in the Central Jail, Jaipur, sought parole for forty days to attend to urgent family matters. The District Collector of Rajasamand granted parole but imposed a condition requiring two sureties, each of ₹50,000, totaling ₹1,00,000. The petitioner, who belongs to a destitute rural family with no means to arrange such sureties, challenged this condition as arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights.
Procedural History
- 14.07.2025: District Collector issued resolution granting parole subject to two sureties of ₹50,000 each.
- 2025: Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, alleging inability to comply due to poverty.
- 24.01.2026: Hearing conducted despite absence of counsel due to a Bar Association strike.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought waiver of the surety condition, requesting substitution with a personal bond and a single surety of reasonable amount, consistent with his economic condition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the imposition of two sureties of ₹50,000 each as a condition for parole, in the case of an indigent prisoner, violates Article 21 of the Constitution by rendering parole effectively inaccessible.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Though no counsel appeared, the petition relied on the petitioner’s affidavit and supporting documents establishing destitution. It invoked State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration to argue that parole conditions must be reasonable and proportionate, and that economic hardship cannot be used to deny a statutory or discretionary benefit.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that surety conditions are standard safeguards to ensure return to custody and that the amount was not excessive. He argued that the state has discretion to impose such conditions to prevent abuse of parole, citing general administrative guidelines.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principle that parole is not a privilege to be granted at the state’s unfettered discretion, but a mechanism to facilitate reintegration, subject to constitutional limits. It noted that the petitioner had previously been granted parole without such conditions, indicating that the surety requirement was newly imposed without justification.
"The right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to seek conditional release without being subjected to economically coercive conditions that render such release illusory."
The Court rejected the notion that financial capacity should determine access to parole. It held that requiring two sureties of ₹50,000 each from an indigent person amounts to a de facto denial of parole, violating the doctrine of proportionality and the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14. The Court emphasized that a personal bond coupled with one surety of equivalent amount is a constitutionally adequate alternative that balances state interest with individual rights.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that imposing unaffordable surety conditions on indigent prisoners violates Article 21 and modified the parole order to require only a personal bond of ₹50,000 and one surety of the same amount. The rest of the parole terms remained unchanged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Surety Requirements Must Be Proportionate to Means
- Practitioners must now challenge parole conditions that impose fixed surety amounts without assessing the prisoner’s financial capacity.
- Courts must conduct a case-specific inquiry into economic status before imposing surety conditions.
- Administrative guidelines cannot override constitutional rights under Article 21.
Personal Bond Is a Constitutionally Valid Alternative
- A personal bond, even for substantial amounts, is sufficient where sureties are unobtainable due to poverty.
- The state’s interest in ensuring return to custody is adequately served by a personal bond with one surety.
- This precedent applies equally to parole under state rules and central prison manuals.
Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Discretion Is Mandatory
- Parole authorities cannot rely on blanket policies to deny liberty.
- Courts will intervene where administrative conditions effectively nullify statutory or discretionary benefits.
- Documentation of indigence (ration cards, income certificates, affidavits) must be accepted as prima facie proof for waiver requests.
