Delhi HC: Right to perform last rites part of dignity protected under Article 21

In a salient restatement of the humanitarian instauration of the parole jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has considered that the close to clasp the past rites of a genitor is an imperative spiritual and motivation obligation, and refusal of parole successful specified cases would magnitude to infringement of the close of a convict to dignity arsenic provided successful Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The petition was filed nether Article 226 of the Constitution of India work with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for exigency parole.The bid was passed by Justice Ravinder Dudeja successful Ajmer Singh alias Pinka v. The State of NCT of Delhi done SHO Kanjhawala, successful which the State Court allowed the 4 weeks parole to a convict truthful that helium could be the “Tehravi” ceremonial and execute the past rites of his deceased father.Background & ConvictionThe petitioner was recovered convicted successful FIR No. 139/2018 filed astatine the Police Station Kanjhawala nether Sections 376/354B/506 IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act. He was ordered to beryllium subjected condemnation vide bid dated 24.04.2025:

All Sentences were instructed to tally concurrently.At the clip of filing the petition, the petitioner had served astir 1 twelvemonth and 9 months and 15 days of imprisonment (excluding remission).

He had not availed immoderate spell of parole oregon furlough successful his custody, and his jailhouse behavior, arsenic reported by the Nominal Roll of 25.09.2025, was marked arsenic having been “Satisfactory”.It was submitted that the petitioner’s begetter had passed distant connected 16.09.2025 owed to a bosom attack, a information verified by the Investigating Officer and that the last rites/“Tehravi” ceremonial was scheduled for 26.09.2025. Being the eldest son, the petitioner sought 2 months’ exigency parole to discharge his spiritual and familial obligations.

As the eldest son, the petitioner requested 2 months of exigency merchandise connected parole to fulfill his spiritual and household duties.State’s Objection and Rule 1212The State opposed the two-month parole petition citing the information that Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides maximum of 4 weeks of parole successful a azygous spell.Rule 1212 provides that a convict whitethorn beryllium released connected parole for a maximum of 8 weeks successful a condemnation twelvemonth successful minimum 2 spells, but not much than 4 weeks successful a azygous spell.

The State frankincense argued that the 2 months of supplication that the petitioner sought was unlawful nether the statute. However, the State reasonably acknowledged that the decease of the petitioner’s begetter and the scheduled last rites had been decently confirmed and that parole connected constricted intent could beryllium granted successful information of the caller scenario.Court’s AnalysisThe Court observed that parole is not conscionable an administrative concession but a proven facet of correctional jurisprudence that seeks to let a convict to person household and societal connections and merchandise cardinal responsibilities.It pointed retired that the parole jurisprudence successful India is humanitarian and reformist successful nature. The rationale down impermanent merchandise is that it is meant to support household ties and societal integration, adjacent successful cases involving sedate convictions.The Court held:“The close to execute past rites of a genitor is an indispensable spiritual and motivation duty. Denial of parole successful specified circumstances would interruption the petitioner’s close to dignity nether Article 21 of the Constitution.”Even though the Court recognized the severity and seriousness of the crimes with which the petitioner was convicted, it warned against being strict successful the mentation of situation rules.Justice Dudeja observed that denying parole contempt a verified humanitarian crushed would magnitude to a mechanical exertion of the Rules, defeating the precise nonsubjective underlying parole jurisprudence.The Court made it wide that though gravity of offence remains a applicable consideration, it cannot override genuine and emergent humanitarian circumstances.

There has to beryllium a equilibrium betwixt the punishment that is provided done incarceration and the law close of the convict to dignity.Balancing the seriousness of the condemnation with the immediacy of the humanitarian ground, the Court held that merchandise for 4 weeks would adequately service the intent of enabling the petitioner to execute the past rites and related customary rituals, without diluting situation discipline.Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner beryllium released connected parole for a play of 4 weeks from the day of release, taxable to stringent conditions including:

The Court made it wide that usurpation of immoderate of the conditions would effect into cancellation of parole immediately.The writ petition was granted to the level of 4 weeks parole, the Court reaffirming that humanitarian factors were a constituent component to law parole jurisprudence and that the dignity of a convict nether Article 21 does not cease to beryllium successful prison.W.P.(CRL) 3146/2025 AJMER SINGH ALIAS PINKA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO KANJAWALAFor Petitioner: Mr. Rajbir Singh Bal and Ms. Sanstuti Mishra, Advs.For Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC SI Rakesh, P.S. Kanjhawala.(Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)