Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence

Chotti Bee w/o Syed Rasool v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 101912/2025, Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), judgment dated 14 August 2025, per Suraj Govindaraj J.

1. Introduction

The writ petition was filed by Chotti Bee, a 62-year-old mother, seeking a writ of mandamus to release her son, Saddam (CTP 4426), on 90-day general parole from Belagavi Central Prison. Saddam, convicted under section 302 IPC and imprisoned since 17 February 2017, had already served more than eight years (including under-trial detention). Although prison authorities recommended parole on medical grounds (his mother’s illness), the Superintendent refused release, citing an adverse, mechanical police report and the pendency of a criminal appeal in which an application for suspension of sentence was sub judice. The core issues before the Court were therefore:

Whether an unreasoned, stereotype police report can be the sole ground to deny parole.
Whether pendency of an application for suspension of sentence/bail in appeal bars consideration of parole.
The extent to which the Karnataka Prison Manual, especially Chapter XXXIV (rules 635-644), binds police and prison authorities.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Suraj Govindaraj partially allowed the petition and:

Directed the Superintendent (Respondent 2) to release Saddam on 60-day general parole to care for his ailing mother.
Imposed routine conditions (weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station, compliance with prison-imposed conditions, and obligation to surrender after parole).
Granted liberty to seek extension of parole, if warranted.
Condemned the practice of filing identical “cut-and-paste” police reports, terming them violative of the convict’s Article 21 rights.
Requested the Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate training and issue instructions for reasoned consideration of parole requests under the Karnataka Prison Manual.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited or Relied Upon

Although the text of the judgment does not reproduce specific citations, the reasoning draws heavily on constitutional and Supreme Court jurisprudence that treats parole/furlough as facets of personal liberty. Key precedents that undergird the Court’s approach include:

Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488 – recognised prisoners’ limited fundamental rights and the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to prevent administrative arbitrariness.
State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 – held that parole is not a matter of grace but of legitimate expectation governed by statutory rules.
Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55 – SC stressed that refusal of parole must be based on relevant material and recorded reasons.
High Court of Karnataka decisions such as H. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2007 KAR 4477, which interpret Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual.

The present judgment extends and localises these principles, emphasising that police feedback under rules 635-644 must be individualised, fact-specific, and reasoned.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Article 21 & Right to Parole The Court categorises parole as a valuable right under Article 21, aligning it with the reformative purpose of punishment and the need for family reintegration.
Illegality of Mechanical Police Reports A blanket or stereotype report, bereft of analytic content, offends natural justice (duty to give reasons) and the Prison Manual, which mandates assessment of the prisoner’s conduct, risk factors, and purpose of leave. Hence such a report cannot override a favourable recommendation by prison authorities.
Parole vs. Suspension of Sentence The Court clarifies the conceptual divide: a suspension order keeps the convict out of prison during the entire appellate process; parole is a short, regulated leave. Therefore, pendency of a bail application is an irrelevant consideration for parole, and conflating the two violates the rule of relevant considerations.
Administrative Directions to DGP Invoking its supervisory power under Articles 226/227 and precedents on prison reforms, the Court issues a request (virtually a continuing mandamus) to the DGP to devise training modules and standard-operating procedures so that police officers apply their mind to every parole request.
Proportionate Relief While the petitioner sought 90 days, the Court granted 60 days, balancing the State’s apprehensions with the convict’s right. This calibrated approach demonstrates judicial proportionality.

3.3 Potential Impact

Systemic Reform – Police stations across Karnataka will have to abandon templated objections and file reasoned reports, reducing arbitrary denials.
Expansion of Article 21 Jurisprudence – By explicitly labeling parole a component of personal liberty, the judgment equips future litigants to challenge summary rejections.
Reduced Prison Overcrowding – Encouraging parole in deserving cases aligns with de-congestion goals, easing fiscal and humanitarian pressures.
Clarificatory Value – The distinction drawn between parole and bail will likely guide subordinate courts and prison authorities, preventing conflation of two distinct remedial paradigms.
Training Mandate – The DGP’s compliance and subsequent circulars may embed the Karnataka Prison Manual’s Chapter XXXIV into police practice, creating a replicable model for other states.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Parole – A temporary, conditional release enabling a prisoner to deal with personal or family affairs. It is not remission of sentence; the prisoner must return after the specified period.
Suspension of Sentence / Bail in Appeal – Complete release from custody during the pendency of an appeal; if granted, the prisoner remains free until the appeal is decided.
Writ of Mandamus – A constitutional command issued by a High Court to compel a public authority to perform a statutory duty.
Mechanical Report – An assessment that is pre-formatted, copy-pasted, or non-speaking; lacking individualised reasons and therefore violative of due-process norms.
Chapter XXXIV (Rules 635-644) of Karnataka Prison Manual – A codified framework detailing eligibility, procedure, and supervisory mechanisms for parole, including mandatory police verification on specific parameters such as conduct, security risk, family circumstances, and previous parole breaches.

5. Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Chotti Bee reinforces the constitutional guardrails around the prison-parole system. By striking down unreasoned police objections and decoupling parole from appellate bail, the Court expands the protective ambit of Article 21 and simultaneously nudges law-enforcement agencies toward a culture of reasoned decision-making. In the broader canvas of prison jurisprudence, the judgment is a significant milestone: it operationalises the reformative theory of punishment, addresses overcrowding pragmatically, and sets a doctrinal benchmark that other High Courts can emulate.