List of Current Affairs

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in Deep Ram v. State of H.P. & Others (2026), held that a prisoner's request for parole cannot be denied solely on the ground that six months have not elapsed since his previous release on parole, ruling that Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 cannot curtail the statutory entitlement to seek parole conferred under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968. 

What was the Background of Deep Ram v. State of H.P. & Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Deep Ram, is undergoing a 20-year sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with his wife, who was convicted in the same case; both are lodged in Model Central Jail, Kanda. 
• Having already served over nine years of imprisonment, the petitioner had earlier been released on parole on eight occasions and had surrendered back to prison on time on each occasion, without any violation of conditions. 
• The petitioner sought parole for 28 days to attend to his wife, who was scheduled to undergo ear surgery at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla. 
• The prison authorities rejected his parole application solely on the ground that six months had not passed since his previous parole, relying on Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021. 
• Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the rejection order and a direction for his release on parole. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the absence of a statutory embargo: The Court observed that the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder do not place any restriction barring consideration of a second parole before expiry of six months from the previous release, and that a convict's claim for parole is governed solely by the parent Act and Rules. 
• On the status of the Prison Manual: The Court held that the Prison Manual is subordinate legislation and cannot introduce conditions inconsistent with or contrary to the parent Act and Rules, and therefore the six-month restriction under Paragraph 19.12 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 could not override the statutory framework. 
• On the petitioner's conduct record: Noting that the petitioner had been granted parole on eight earlier occasions, had surrendered within time on every occasion, and had no adverse report against his conduct, the Court held that the authorities had no justification to reject his application solely on the ground that six months had not elapsed. 
• On procedural non-compliance: The Court found that the petitioner's application had not even been forwarded to the District Magistrate for a report under Section 6 of the Act, and had instead been rejected solely on the basis of the Prison Manual, rendering the rejection legally unsustainable. 
• On the relief granted: Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's parole application. 

What is Parole? 

• About: 
  • Parole is the temporary release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions before their sentence is finished. 
  • Parole is defined as a conditional release of a prisoner, generally under supervision of a parole officer, who has served part of the term for which he was sentenced to prison. 
  • These conditions often include regular check-ins with a parole officer, maintaining employment or attending educational programs, and refraining from criminal activity.  
  • Parole is typically granted based on factors such as good behavior, the nature of the crime, and the potential for rehabilitation. 
  • It allows individuals to reintegrate into society gradually while still under supervision.  
  • Violating the terms of parole can result in the individual being sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence. 
• Objective of Parole: 
  • Facilitating the maintenance of familial ties and addressing family-related matters for the prisoner. 
  • Mitigating the adverse impacts of prolonged incarceration on the prisoner's well-being. 
  • Fostering the enhancement of the prisoner's self-confidence. 
  • Cultivating positive outlooks and engendering active engagement with life for the prisoner. 
• Types of Parole: 
  • Custody Parole: 
    • It is provided in emergency situations. 
    • Except for foreigners and those serving death sentences, all convicted persons may be eligible for this parole for 14 days for reasons such as the death or marriage of a family member. 
  • Regular Parole: 
    • Offenders who have served at least one year in prison are eligible for regular parole for a maximum of one month. 
    • It is allotted on certain grounds like marriage, accident, death, illness in a family or delivery of child etc. 

What is Legal Provision Involved in Parole? 

• The grant of parole falls under the purview of rules established under the Prison Act, 1894, and the Prison Act, 1900.  
• Various state governments have formulated guidelines to ensure objectivity and facilitate decision-making regarding the granting of parole in specific cases. 
• These decisions are made in accordance with the guidelines framed periodically.  
• For instance, in Maharashtra, the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, have been enacted under the rule-making power conferred by Section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1984.  
• These rules provide a framework for the administration and regulation of parole in the state. 
• Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, 2000, emphasized that “parole does not amount to suspension of sentence”. 
  • This observation underscores that parole cannot be equated with the suspension of a sentence as outlined in Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

What are the Differences between Bail and Parole? 

In Indian law, parole and bail are distinct legal concepts with different purposes and implications: 

• While both parole and bail involve temporary release from custody, they serve different purposes and are granted under different circumstances in Indian law.  
• Parole is for individuals already serving a sentence, aiming at rehabilitation and reintegration, while bail is for those awaiting trial, ensuring their presence at legal proceedings. 
• Being allowed to take an oath while still in custody is indeed a special circumstance, akin to a temporary release or special parole for the purpose of fulfilling official duties.  
  • It doesn't equate to being released on bail, as the individual remains in custody except for the specific event or activity for which they are granted permission to leave. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in Government of India & Anr. v. Sri Devraj Urs Medical College (2026), reiterated that a Supreme Court judgment applies retrospectively unless it expressly states otherwise, and set aside a Karnataka High Court direction that had extended the benefit of a subvention scheme for medical college students despite the scheme having been declared unconstitutional by an eleven-judge Constitution Bench in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002). 

What was the Background of Government of India & Anr. v. Sri Devraj Urs Medical College (2026) Case? 

• A subvention scheme, introduced in 1995 pursuant to interim directions of the Supreme Court, provided for payment of a subvention amount to certain medical college students. 
• The eleven-judge Constitution Bench in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka delivered its judgment on October 31, 2002, declaring the scheme unconstitutional. 
• The controversy arose over whether the subvention scheme survived for students admitted in the academic year 2002-03 for the entire five-year course, despite the scheme having been struck down. 
• The respondent institution argued that a subsequent clarificatory order directing "status quo" indicated the Constitution Bench decision was meant to operate prospectively, thereby preserving the scheme for existing beneficiaries. 
• The Appellant-governments contended that the prospective protection in TMA Pai Foundation was confined to statutory provisions requiring legislative or regulatory modification, and did not extend to the subvention scheme. 
• The Single and Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, directing payment of the subvention amount for the full five years to students admitted in 2002-03, while denying the benefit to students admitted in 2003-04. 
• Aggrieved by the direction to extend the scheme to 2002-03 admittees, the Union and State Governments approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the retrospective operation of judgments: The Court held that unless a judgment of the Supreme Court expressly states that it shall apply prospectively, the settled position of law is that all its decisions operate retrospectively. 
• On the effect of TMA Pai Foundation: The Bench observed that since the eleven-judge decision did not expressly provide for prospective application, the scheme "died its own death" on October 31, 2002, rendering it unconstitutional from its very inception rather than only from the date of the judgment. 
• On the High Court's error: The Court held that the High Court fell in error in extending the scope of the subvention scheme to students admitted in 2002-03, despite the scheme having already been declared unconstitutional, holding that such a course was impermissible once the scheme stood struck down. 
• On phased disbursement: The Court clarified that it was not incumbent on the Central Government to pay the subvention amount for the entire five-year course in one go, and that the High Court was incorrect in directing release of the full five-year amount even for the 2002-03 batch. 
• On the final direction: The Court set aside the High Court's direction extending the subvention benefit to students admitted in 2002-03 for the full five years, while upholding the High Court's direction denying the benefit to students admitted in 2003-04. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed. 

What is the Doctrine of Retrospective and Prospective Operation of Judgments? 

• Retrospective operation means a judgment applies from the date the law or right in question originally came into existence or the date of the event it addresses, not merely from the date of the judgment itself. 
• Prospective operation (or prospective overruling) means a judgment applies only from the date it is delivered, or from a future date specified by the Court, without disturbing past transactions concluded under the earlier legal position. 
• General rule: Under Article 141 of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions are ordinarily retrospective in effect, since a judgment declares what the law always was rather than creating new law. 
• Exception: The Supreme Court may expressly mould relief and declare a judgment prospective only in specific circumstances, typically to avoid undue hardship or administrative chaos arising from unsettling past actions taken in reliance on the earlier legal position. 
• Burden of express declaration: The doctrine places the burden on the Court itself to expressly state where a judgment is to operate prospectively; in the absence of such an express declaration, courts and authorities must presume retrospective application.

Article 141 of the COI 

• After independence, when our Constitution came into force, Article 141 was enforced, which strengthened the status of judicial precedents in the Indian legal system.  
• Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.   
• The law declared has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which the case is decided. 
• Article 141 does not carve out an exception or proviso which allows the Supreme Court to make an observation regarding what shall not be treated as a precedent.  
• Once a judgment is pronounced, the role of the Supreme Court ends there, and Article 141 steps into the picture. 
• A judgment rendered by the Supreme Court is nbinding in its entirety.  
• It is only the ratio decidendi part of the judgment which is binding and shall be taken into consideration while deciding questions of law based on identical issues and facts.