The Supreme Court on Friday directed the State of Rajasthan to pay ₹11 lakh in compensation to a convict who remained in prison for 24 days despite a High Court order directing his release on parole [Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan].
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih held that the State could not continue depriving a person of liberty merely because officials were considering whether whether they should challenge a judicial order granting parole.
"The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not," the Court said.
The Bench also emphasised that a judicial order directing a person's release must be complied with unless it is stayed by a superior court. It added that the rights of a convicted person do not diminish merely because he is serving a sentence.
The matter concerned one Daudayal, who was convicted by a trial court in 1988 and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment in connection with a 1967 crime that occurred in Rajasthan. The case against Daudyal involved allegations of unlawful assembly, house tresspass and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court in 2021, following which he was taken into custody to serve the sentence.
While serving his sentence, Daudayal applied for permanent parole in 2023. After prison authorities rejected his request, he approached the Rajasthan High Court. On November 5, 2024, a single-judge Bench of the High Court ordered his release on parole subject to certain conditions.
Although Daudayal complied with the conditions imposed by the High Court and his sureties were verified on November 13, 2024, he remained in prison. He subsequently approached a Division Bench of the High Court, which directed his immediate release on December 6, 2024.
He later approached the Supreme Court seeking compensation for the time he was forced to remain in jail despite a parole order in his favour.
He argued that there was no legal basis for keeping him in prison for 24 days after his sureties were verified. He contended that the continued detention violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and entitled him to compensation.
The State countered that the High Court's order was contrary to the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. It contended that the delay in releasing Daudayal occurred because authorities were considering whether to challenge the order.
The Court rejected the State's argument and held that once Daudayal had fulfilled the conditions imposed by the High Court and his sureties were verified, there was no justification for keeping him in prison.
His continued incarceration, the Court said, amounted to illegal detention and entitled him to compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Court awarded Daudayal ₹11 lakh as compensation for the violation of his personal liberty.
Advocates Tushar Bathija, Rishabh Dheer and Aishwarya Singh appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates S Udaya Kumar Sagar, Kshitij Mittal and Mayank Sharma appeared for the respondents.
[Read Judgment]