No COVID Parole Extension for Emergent Parolees: Raj HC

Prisoners on Emergent Parole Cannot Claim COVID Parole Extension Given to Regular Parolees: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a life convict's writ petition seeking amendment of Rule 10B of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 so that prisoners on emergent parole would also get the Covid-19 extension of parole to 30.06.2021. The Division Bench held that regular parole under Rule 9 and emergent parole under Rule 10A rest on distinct criteria, so the two classes are not similarly placed and Rule 10B is not discriminatory (paras 16-17). It also declined to direct amendment of a statutory rule (paras 19-21).

Key holdings

Regular parole needs one-fourth of the sentence served and good conduct; emergent parole under Rule 10A needs neither (paras 10, 13).

Following Kishan, the Rule 14 ineligibilities do not bar emergent parole (para 15).

An emergent parolee is not similarly placed with a regular parolee and cannot claim parity under Rule 10B (paras 16-17).

The Rule 10B proviso excludes offences that do not bar emergent parole, further defeating parity (para 17).

Courts cannot direct amendment of statutory rules; directions only fill a vacuum where the law is silent (paras 19-21).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, serving a life sentence in Central Jail, Udaipur, was granted 15 days' emergent parole under Rule 10A by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar on 25.05.2021 because his father was suffering from Covid-19; his application of 04.06.2021 for extension went unanswered (paras 2-3). Rule 10B, inserted on 10.04.2020, allows special parole during the pandemic to prisoners who have already availed first, second or third parole peacefully; sub-rule (2), as amended on 17.05.2021, deems parole already being availed to be extended up to 30.06.2021 (paras 3-4). The petitioner sought an amendment covering emergent parolees and extension of his own parole, contending that confining the benefit to regular parolees was discriminatory when its sole purpose was decongesting jails (paras 1, 5).

Court's Findings

Examining the 1958 Rules, framed under the power now in Section 432(5) of the CrPC, the Bench noted that regular parole under Rule 9 requires one-fourth of the sentence served with remission, good jail conduct and good behaviour on earlier paroles; Rule 10 requires an eleven-month interval, and Rule 9 parole counts as sentence served under Rule 12 (paras 8, 10-11). Emergent parole under Rule 10A, granted on humanitarian grounds, carries none of these conditions and, as held in Kishan, is not barred by Rule 14 (paras 13, 15). The two operate in distinct fields, so an emergent parolee cannot claim parity under Rule 10B (para 16). The Supreme Court's suo motu Covid-19 prisons case and the High Powered Committee's minutes of 13.05.2021 reflected a conscious decision to extend only special and regular parole, and the Rule 10B proviso bars special parole for certain offences, some of which do not bar emergent parole (para 17). The same plea could be raised for every new entrant to jail (para 18). Relying on Association for Democratic Reforms and Priamvada, the Court held that it could not direct amendment of a statutory rule, in which it found no fault (paras 19-21).

Legal Principle

Regular parole under Rule 9 and emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rajasthan parole rules rest on distinct criteria, so confining the Covid-19 special parole and deemed extension under Rule 10B to regular parolees is not discriminatory. A writ court will not direct the State to amend a statutory rule where no legal vacuum exists (paras 16-21).

Precedents Relied Upon

Kishan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1990(1) RLR 652
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15, 16
Division Bench: Rule 10A deals with emergent cases involving humanitarian considerations and carves out an exception to the other rules; a convict of a category in Rule 14 who satisfies Rule 10A is entitled to be released on parole.
In Re: Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020 (Supreme Court)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17, 18
With the High Powered Committee minutes of 13.05.2021, it reflects a conscious decision to extend the parole only of prisoners already on special or regular parole; the Supreme Court confined new entry of inmates into jails to the Arnesh Kumar categories.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18
Its categories were applied by the Supreme Court in the suo motu Covid-19 prisons case to confine new entry of inmates into jails.

View all precedents (6)

Union of India & Ors. v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 294
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 19
Three-Judge Bench: courts cannot direct amendment of an Act or statutory rules; directions may fill a vacuum only where the law is silent and the authority has power to act.
Priamvada v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. MANU/RH/1419/2001
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20, 21
Division Bench: under Article 226 a writ court may enforce the law or declare it ultra vires, but cannot issue a mandamus to the legislative authorities to amend the law.
All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 288
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20
The Supreme Court judgment on whose strength the petitioner in Priamvada sought a direction to amend the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955; that prayer was rejected.

Statutory Provisions