Parole for convicts, prison for protesters

The law is a ass — a idiot, says Mr Bumble (in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist). He may well be right, if three events of the recent past are anything to go by. First is the grant of parole to Gurmeet Ram Rahim; second, the denial of bail to Umar Khalid for his alleged role in fomenting the riots in Delhi in 2020 and third, the detention of Sonam Wangchuk and denying him the right to protest peacefully. If anybody can rationalise and justify these events, hats off to that person. Why am I so perplexed by these events?

Let’s first consider the parole granted to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Insan. He was convicted in August 2017 on two charges of rape and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for each conviction, with the sentence to run consecutively. That is 20 years’ imprisonment. In almost all cases, the courts direct that the sentence should run concurrently. So, there must be some special reason why the court directed that his sentence should be consecutive.

In 2019, he was again convicted, this time for the murder of a journalist and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It appears that an appeal against his conviction is pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was convicted for the third time in 2021 for another murder and again sentenced to imprisonment for life. An appeal against his conviction was allowed by the high court in May 2024.

Therefore, as of May 2024, he is convicted of having committed two rapes, for which he is serving a sentence of 20 years; he is also convicted of two separate murders, and in each case, he is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life. Yet, with all these convictions, he was granted parole, virtually for the asking, about 10 times for varying periods of time.

The authorities justify the grant of parole by explaining that under the jail manual, every convict is entitled to parole or furlough for 90 days in a year, and Gurmeet Ram Rahim has availed himself of this 90-day benefit every year, as per his entitlement. So far, so good. If he is entitled to parole, why should it be denied to him?

But it would be interesting to know how many convicts are aware of this provision in the jail manual. Have all the convicts been made aware of this ‘facility’ and if not, why not? How many of those aware of this ‘facility’ have actually availed themselves of it? Or, is it that Gurmeet Ram Rahim has been accorded special treatment, and if so, why?

Now consider the case of Umar Khalid. He is accused of being the mastermind behind the riots in Delhi in 2020 — accused, not proven guilty as yet. He is, therefore, legally in a much better position than any convict. As an undertrial, he has been in prison for more than four years. Yet, he has never been granted parole or furlough, except once for a week to attend his sister’s wedding. It is unlikely that he will ever be granted parole again.

Is the beneficial provision in the jail manual available only to convicts and not to undertrial prisoners? If so, why are undertrial prisoners treated in a manner worse than a convict?

Umar Khalid had applied for bail, but it was denied to him in the trial court after quite a few adjournments. He was denied bail by the Delhi High Court as well, that too after eight months of adjournments. He then appealed to the Supreme Court and after about a dozen adjournments over 10 months, he withdrew his appeal for reasons that would be obvious to any discerning person.

We often talk of speedy justice, but can anybody justify the pendency of a bail application for such long periods? After withdrawing his appeal from the Supreme Court, he approached the trial court again, where he was denied bail yet again. His case is now pending in the Delhi High Court and will, hopefully, be taken up later in November and not adjourned.

I find it shocking that though in legal terms Umar Khalid, as an undertrial prisoner, is in a better position than a convicted prisoner, yet he has never been released even once in more than 1,500 days of incarceration, except once for a week.

What kind of justice is this, or is it justice at all? It seems quite clear that there are two kinds of prisoners — one, who is privileged and influential. Such a prisoner can get whatever he wants. There are several such persons. In Bangalore, film star Darshan was found ‘hanging out’ with friends in a garden in the prison premises, smoking and drinking a beverage (presumably). Imagine, if somehow or the other, Umar Khalid manages to do something akin to Darshan’s shenanigans, I have no doubt that all hell will break loose.

Let’s turn from violent crime to a ‘peaceful crime’. Sonam Wangchuk led a peaceful protest to Delhi for the rights of the people of Ladakh. There was no al-legation or report of any violence during his peaceful march. Yet, before he and others could enter Delhi from the border, an order was passed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (similar to Section 144 of the CrPC) on the grounds of some apprehended danger. Pray, what was the apprehended danger? He wanted to visit the Rajghat to pay his respects to Mahatma Gandhi. Is that something likely to cause danger to society?

Sonam was detained on September 30 and released on October 2 and allowed to pay his respects. Note, he was not arrested, and the detention without arrest enabled the police to circumvent Article 22 of the Constitution. The Article requires the production of every person who is arrested and detained in custody before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest. Now, the text of the Constitution has not been changed, but its interpretation and implementation has been transformed. Should this be accepted?

After his release, Sonam wanted to protest at Jantar Mantar, the officially designated place, but he was denied permission. He protested outside Ladakh House and was politely told that this was impermissible. The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right. It seems to have been deleted from the Constitution as applicable to Sonam Wangchuk. Can somebody please explain?