The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that prisoners serving life imprisonment without a death sentence are eligible for permanent parole upon completing 12 years of incarceration, provided they meet conduct and compliance criteria. The judgment invalidates arbitrary rejections by parole committees that rely on vague apprehensions rather than concrete evidence.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court held that under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, permanent parole cannot be denied solely on the ground that the convict has not completed 14 years of imprisonment if the original sentence was life imprisonment without a death penalty. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner on permanent parole, subject to standard conditions.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Lala @ Lalshankar @ Jigar, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, on 24 April 2015. He has served approximately 12 years in custody as of the date of the petition. During this period, he was granted temporary parole on six occasions, each time returning to jail on time without any violation or criminal activity. His conduct inside the prison was reported as satisfactory.
In August 2025, the petitioner applied for permanent parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The State Level Parole Committee rejected his application on 9 September 2025, citing general concerns about public safety and potential threats to the complainant’s family, without citing any specific incident or misconduct by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this rejection through a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
The petitioner relied on a prior judgment of the same court dated 14 December 2023 in Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan, which had interpreted Rule 9 similarly. The State opposed the petition, defending the Committee’s decision as discretionary and based on public interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, permits denial of permanent parole to a life convict who has served 12 years, where the original sentence did not include death penalty, merely because 14 years have not elapsed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the proviso to Rule 9 explicitly restricts the 14-year mandatory waiting period only to those sentenced to death. For all others, including life convicts, the rule imposes no such bar. The petitioner had fulfilled all other conditions: six prior paroles without breach, clean conduct in jail, and no subsequent offences. Counsel cited the precedent in Heeralal (supra), where the same court had held that the 14-year restriction does not apply to life convicts without death sentences.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the State Level Parole Committee exercises broad discretionary powers under the Rules to assess risk to public order and victim safety. He argued that the Committee’s rejection, though not detailed, was based on holistic evaluation and could not be second-guessed by the court. He also suggested that permanent parole for a life convict, even after 12 years, might undermine the gravity of the sentence.
The Court's Analysis
The court began by examining the plain language of the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. It observed that the proviso states: "No person sentenced to death shall be considered for permanent parole unless he has undergone imprisonment for not less than fourteen years." The court emphasized that this restriction is expressly limited to death penalty cases. There is no equivalent provision for life convicts.
"The proviso to Rule 9 very clearly puts an embargo for not releasing a person on permanent parole if he has been awarded death penalty and unless a person has served 14 years of imprisonment."
The court noted that the Committee’s rejection relied on generalized fears - "the complainant party may face threat" - without any supporting evidence, prior misconduct, or violation of parole conditions. Such speculative apprehensions, the court held, cannot override a clear statutory eligibility criterion.
The court further affirmed the binding precedent in Heeralal (supra), which had interpreted the same rule in identical circumstances. The Committee’s failure to distinguish the present case from Heeralal rendered its decision legally unsustainable.
The court rejected the State’s argument that parole decisions are immune from judicial review. While discretion exists, it must be exercised within the bounds of the rule. Arbitrary denial based on unsubstantiated fears violates the principle of proportionality and the rule of law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent for life convicts in Rajasthan who have not been sentenced to death. They become eligible for permanent parole after completing 12 years of incarceration, provided they have maintained good conduct and complied with prior temporary parole conditions. Parole committees can no longer rely on vague public safety concerns to deny eligibility when the statutory criteria are met.
Practitioners should now treat the 14-year bar as exclusively applicable to death row convicts. Applications by life convicts after 12 years should be evaluated on conduct, rehabilitation, and risk assessment - not arbitrary time thresholds. Any rejection must now be supported by specific, documented reasons tied to the convict’s behavior or threat profile.
This ruling also reinforces judicial oversight over administrative parole decisions. Future rejections based on unsubstantiated apprehensions will likely be set aside under Article 226. Legal aid organizations and prison rights advocates may now use this judgment to challenge similar denials across the state.
