The Parole File on the Officer's Desk: Why the Test Is the Rule, Not the Convict

Same Rule, Same File, Whatever the Crime

Imagine you are the prison official who must sign this parole file. Five men convicted for the 1998 Coimbatore serial bombings have asked for leave, citing personal circumstances and health. They have spent nearly three decades in prison.

Mohammed Ansari is now 58. Their petitions were reportedly cleared earlier this year, then held back during the Assembly elections and fresh petitions have now been approved. The easy answer would be to say no. Fifty-eight people died in nineteen explosions.

The bombings were believed to target L.K. Advani. Some families still carry that day. But the easy answer is not the whole answer.

What weighs on each side The case for granting leave. Tamil Nadu's Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, allow life convicts ordinary leave after a minimum term, if their conduct is satisfactory.

In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017), the Supreme Court treated parole as a reformative tool meant to preserve family ties and prevent psychological deterioration. Parole does not shorten a sentence; the prisoner returns.

And this case has precedent: nine convicts received interim leave on health grounds in January 2023 and the Madras High Court granted another convict three months' leave that year on medical grounds. The case against. The Union Home Ministry's Model Prison Manual 2016 says terrorists and high-risk prisoners should not get parole in the normal course.

In October 2023, the Supreme Court refused bail to convicts in this very case, holding that the loss of 58 lives outweighed their long incarceration. The BJP has accused the TVK government of selective softness for political gain.

For victims' families, the release can reopen a wound. Both sides carry real moral weight. That is what makes this a genuine dilemma, not a compliance question.

Where the

ethical test actually lies The question is not who the convict is. It is whether the decision was made by the rule. The government says the parole was routine and on a par with other prisoners. If that is true, it should be easy to show: the eligibility criteria, the conduct record, the medical grounds and the reasons for not applying the Model Manual's caution.

No formal order has been made public. That gap, more than the decision itself, is what invites the charge of appeasement. The Bilkis Bano judgment of 2024 shows why. The Supreme Court quashed remission for 11 convicts because the relief was granted without proper legal authority.

It held that the rule of law cannot give way to arbitrary compassion. The lesson cuts both ways: compassion must follow the rules and so must refusal.

The resolution The official should grant or refuse leave only on recorded, consistent criteria applied equally to every prisoner and publish the reasons in a form that protects privacy and security.

Where terror convicts are concerned, the decision should state explicitly why the Model Manual's caution was or was not followed and impose strict conditions. What is sacrificed? Some victims' families will feel unheard whichever way the file goes.

But a state that decides parole by the identity of the convict, in either direction, has stopped governing by law. For GS4, the insight is that transparency is not a procedural detail here. It is the only thing that separates principled mercy from political favour.