Hue and cry: A protest against the parole granted to Manu Sharma in Delhi; (below) Manu Sharma

Manu Sharma, who is serving the sentence of life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lal, was recently out on parole for two months. No one would probably have known about his parole had he not got involved in a brawl at a night club and that too with a high-ranking police officer’s son. The media pounced on the incident, questioning the rightness or otherwise of the parole granted to him, and subsequently, Sharma, who is the son of a Congress politician, quietly slunk back into jail.

The furore over the incident has thrown the spotlight on the way in which rich and influential prisoners often misuse parole clauses in our country. In fact, legal experts believe that the laws and rules governing the granting of parole should be made tighter so that reprieve to prisoners is given for the right reasons and not under any extra-judicial influence.

“Murder convicts rarely get parole and that too extended ones, especially when the grounds are as flimsy as the ones offered by Sharma,” says Supreme Court lawyer, Kamini Jaiswal. Sharma was granted a 30-day parole from September 22 (later extended to November 22) in view of his mother’s illness and apparently because he needed to take care of his business interests which were said to be suffering in his absence. Amazingly, Sharma’s ‘ailing’ mother was seen days later, looking hale and hearty and addressing a press conference.

“Often, non-urgent, unimportant and flimsy grounds are cited to obtain parole. Manu Sharma’s bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court last year on similar grounds. Then how could he get a parole on these grounds one year later?” wonders Calcutta-based human rights lawyer, Tapas Kumar Bhanja.

According to Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), parole is granted for a fortnight to a month strictly on humanitarian grounds. If, for example, a convict’s wife, child or parent is seriously ill or there is a death in the immediate family and the convict needs to perform the deceased’s last rites, or if his house or property has been destroyed by a calamity, then he may be granted parole. A family wedding can also be a reason to grant a parole. For instance, Vikas Yadav, convicted in the Nitish Katara murder case, was allowed a day’s parole to attend his sister’s wedding recently.

But legal experts point out that the rules for the granting of parole are often flouted. “Despite definite clauses mentioned in the CrPC, they are rarely followed. Since the recommendations of the jail and the local police station are given supreme importance while granting parole, there is a lot of scope for manipulation,” says Kallol Basu, criminal lawyer, Calcutta High Court.

The law also lays down that the convict out on parole should be always accompanied by the police. Once again, this is rarely followed. “Was Manu Sharma accompanied by the police while he was at the club or did the local police station bother to keep tabs on his movements,” asks Bhanja.

Many legal experts believe the provisions of Section 432 of the CrPC should be made more detailed and the courts given the power to oversee and cross-check the police and jail authorities’ recommendations.

“The official process of a parole application starts with its verification by the police and jail authorities. It is based on the conduct of the convict in jail and also the local police station’s report on whether or not the convict’s presence in the locality would cause any trouble. The application is cleared by the Governor (in case of Delhi) or by the deputy inspector general (DIG) or inspector general (IG) prisons (in most states) who issue the final orders,” says S.R. Hussain, ex-additional IG, prisons.

Hence it is fairly easy to influence the local police station or the prison authorities and get parole, believes Basu.

There are those who maintain that involving the courts in the process of granting parole may not be the ideal solution. “If there is some emergency, a convict cannot be expected to wait for a long court proceeding to decide if he should get parole,” says Bhanja. “Say, someone’s mother is dying. How long can a convict wait,” he asks.

Of course, even now the courts and the government do figure in the parole process. For instance, they have the right to cancel parole if any condition on which the sentence was suspended is violated. Section 432 of the CrPC states: “Any person sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, suspend the execution of his sentence…” It also says, “The appropriate government may require the presiding judge of the court before or by which the conviction was confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused.”

But despite the controversy surrounding parole, the institution of parole per se is a beneficial one, helping the convict as it does to reintegrate with society. “Modern criminal jurisprudence recognises that criminals are not born but made, since a crime is a culmination of primarily socio-economic factors. Thus modern laws try to reform criminals in order to control crimes through provisions like paroles,” says Sunil Mitra, professor of law, Calcutta University. Mitra cites the example of the US legal system where criminals are often sent to reformatories and correctional homes or made to perform social services to connect them with society.

Interestingly, prisoners of Tihar Jail in Delhi had written a letter to the Delhi High Court in October this year, requesting transparency in the process of granting parole and protesting against the inordinate delay in taking such decisions. Taking note of the letter, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar observed on October 21, 2009, “The verification of parole petitions should be done expeditiously so that justice can be given to everyone.”

The judges also urged the government to formulate new guidelines on parole. These include tightening the norms for granting parole, fixing a definite time frame within which the police should complete the verification process, debarring repeated offenders from getting parole, and running a thorough check on the inmate’s background before awarding parole.

The judges’ recommendations have not been acted upon yet. But there’s no doubt that if adopted, these measures could go a long way in making sure that the criminal justice system grants parole only to those who deserve it.