ABOVE THE LAW

It has now been established that rules were bent when Manu Sharma, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of model Jessica Lall, was given parole. Sharma had sought parole on three grounds: to participate in the religious rites of his late grandmother; attend to his ailing mother; and to take care of his business. Delhi police did not find any of these reasons good enough to grant parole. However, the Delhi government did not go by its own state police recommendations and cleared Sharma's request based on a report by the Chandigarh police. Incidentally, Sharma's father is an influential Congress politician in Chandigarh. Besides, Sharma's request was processed in unseemly haste.


The way parole was granted to Sharma makes a mockery of justice. The Supreme Court has ruled that every accused or convict should be released on parole once a year. In principle this is a good thing. But in reality parole pleas of ordinary convicts across the country have been gathering dust. This is true also for Tihar jail, here Sharma is serving his sentence.

 

The parole figures for Delhi clearly show that the system isn't working. This year, out of 132 applications for parole from prisoners in Tihar, only 11 were approved. And despite a court directive that parole applications be processed quickly it takes more than 8-10 months to decide most cases. In many cases the delay often negates the very reason for which parole was being requested. It's clear that very few convicts do manage to get parole, and Sharma was one of them. The situation in Delhi is further complicated because the lieutenant-governor and not the director-general of police has the final say. This could lead to situations where considerations other than urgency or merit of the application could creep in, as it seems to have done in Sharma's case.


That the parole system is not working is also evident from prisoners who have disappeared after being out on parole. These include terrorists and ISI agents. Clearly, the way parole is being handled needs to be overhauled. The SC's logic of being lenient about parole is laudable since that could be a way of reforming criminals. But if the system is being subverted to favour the powerful or to allow dangerous criminals to flee, that cannot be allowed to continue. The method of processing and tracking parole needs to be streamlined so that only deserving criminals, whether for good behaviour or the urgency of their request, are let out. The others, including dangerous criminals, must remain behind bars.