The New Indian Express ·
'Flimsy, untenable excuses': Delhi HC initiates contempt proceedings against Tihar superintendent for not releasing accused
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt of court proceedings against a superintendent at Tihar jail for not releasing an undertrial from prison on parole on “flimsy and untenable excuses” despite the court directions.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on accused Anwar Hussain’s plea, who had approached the high court against Dr Pawan Kumar, Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar.
The judge had ordered the release of Hussain, who had been in jail as an undertrial accused for over 5 years, on parole subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the jail.
However, instead of fixing such terms, the jail superintendent made flimsy and untenable excuses to prolong Hussain's incarceration, the judge said.
“The acts of the Jail Authority have caused a citizen of this Country, who had remained under-trial for a period of 5 years 5 months, to continue to remain behind bars despite an order of a Constitutional Court directing his release," the court said.
"Owing to flimsy and untenable excuses of the Jail Authority and Dr (Pawan) Kumar, a mockery has been made of the legal system. The right of the petitioner to be governed by the rule of law and to have his personal liberty protected, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, has been violated," the court said.
"Dr Kumar's conduct of, inter alia, imposing additional conditions which are at the teeth of the order of this court is found to be a wilful violation of the order. The court, therefore, draws contempt proceedings against Dr Pawan Kumar, Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar,” the judge said in an order passed on September 15.
The judge termed the officer's conduct “a blatant abuse of the powers” that violated Hussain's constitutional right to personal liberty, saying, “The jail superintendent had attempted to frustrate a judicial order and made a mockery of the legal system.”
The court had earlier granted Hussain parole for a period of four weeks by an order dated July 30.
In the said order, the court added that the jail authorities may fix appropriate conditions for Hussain's release on parole. However, the jail superintendent did not fix any such conditions. Hussain, therefore, approached the court again for relief.
The court then itself fixed the terms of Hussain’s release on parole in an order dated August 11.
When Hussain's family approached the jail authorities for his release on parole, the jail superintendent again refused to release him. The superintendent said that he would not act on the August 11 order unless it is received directly from the court.
The matter will be heard next on September 22.