The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks' parole to a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, ruling that a prisoner cannot be compelled to rely solely on jail legal aid or consultations held in prison visitors' rooms. The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, which simultaneously set aside the rejection order issued by prison authorities.

Background: Why Parole Was Sought

Prison authorities had rejected Faizan Ahmad's parole application on 10 April on the sole ground that he was a POCSO convict. Justice Kathpalia held that conviction under the POCSO Act cannot, by itself, be a basis to deny parole when the purpose of the request is to pursue a legal remedy before the apex court. The court reiterated its position from a recent ruling in a similar case, observing that the convict cannot be compelled to avail services of a jail advocate against his choice of private counsel, and that the visitors' room in jail is not a conducive environment for an effective discussion with counsel.

The Court's Core Reasoning

Justice Kathpalia underscored that denying parole under such circumstances would deprive the prisoner of his fundamental right to effectively pursue legal remedies before the apex court. The order stated: "In order to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of a right to be effectively heard by the Supreme Court, grant of parole cannot be denied to him." Notably, the prosecution did not oppose the petition in fairness, though it sought safeguards to prevent the convict from contacting prosecution witnesses and to ensure he remained at an address away from the prosecutrix's residence.

Conditions Imposed on Release

Allowing the plea, Justice Kathpalia directed Faizan Ahmad's release on parole for four weeks upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount. The convict must provide his mobile number and residence details to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), remain accessible at all times, and submit a copy of the SLP to jail authorities upon surrender. The court made it explicitly clear that no extension of parole shall be allowed on any ground whatsoever, and expressly restrained the petitioner from contacting any prosecution witnesses during the parole period. Jail authorities have been directed to inform the convict in writing of the exact surrender date at the time of release.

Precedent and Broader Implications

This ruling follows a similar order by the Delhi High Court in an earlier POCSO case, where the court had held that while legal aid or jail visits by private lawyers may technically be available, they do not adequately safeguard a prisoner's right to effective legal representation. That ruling had established that parole cannot be denied if doing so deprives a prisoner of the right to be effectively heard before the Supreme Court. The latest order reinforces that principle, signalling that courts will scrutinise blanket denials of parole based solely on the nature of the conviction. The matter now moves to the Supreme Court, where Ahmad is expected to file his SLP within the four-week window.