The Supreme Court on Monday, 1 August, declined to intervene in a Rajasthan High Court order, which granted 15-day parole to a life convict to father a child.
The Rajasthan government, while challenging the ruling in the Supreme Court in June, contended that several prisoners were applying for parole on the same grounds following this.
Commenting on the matter, the apex court added that if any convict got furlough on the same grounds after this, the state government could approach the high court with its apprehensions.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said that although it had some reservations about the judgment, it would not intervene in the current case.
The high court on 18 April gave parole to Nand Lal, lodged in Ajmer Central Jail, after his wife approached the court, urging that she be allowed to have a child. Citing "want of progeny" she appealed that her husband be granted parole.
In her plea, she said she has been deprived of her right, even though she has not committed any offence and has not been given any punishment.
The high court had ruled that denying conjugal rights to the prisoner, in this case, would adversely affect the rights of his wife.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)