New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against Tihar Jail superintendent Pawan Kumar for allegedly failing to release an undertrial prisoner on parole despite judicial orders and engaging in “wilful violation” of court directives by attempting to impose unauthorised conditions on the prisoner’s release.
The court said that “owing to flimsy and untenable excuses of the Jail Authority and Kumar, a mockery has been made of the legal system”, which resulted in a direct violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life & personal liberty) of the Constitution.
The petitioner, Anwar Hussain, an undertrial prisoner who had spent five years and five months in custody, sought parole to pursue legal remedies before the Supreme Court.
On 30 July, the high court granted him four weeks of parole, directing the competent jail authority to impose appropriate release conditions. However, the authority failed to set conditions, leaving Hussain incarcerated.
Hussain then filed an application pleading that the “benefit of the order dated 30.07.2026 cannot be rendered ineffective merely on account of an administrative difficulty in formulating or imposing the conditions of parole”.
Consequently, on 11 August, the high court modified its order and directly specified the release conditions. When Hussain’s family approached Tihar Jail, the jail authority refused to act upon the order unless received directly from the court.
Calling this a “flimsy and unjustifiable reason” to “frustrate the order of the court”, Justice P. Kumar Kaurav highlighted that the previous order was a digitally signed public document whose authenticity could easily be verified.
Hussain was forced to file a fresh application through his advocate Shannu Baghel seeking execution of the relief granted nearly six weeks prior. On 8 September, the high court summoned the jail superintendent to personally explain why contempt action should not be initiated against him.
Court rejects defense of ‘routine’ verification
During the 15 September hearing, the counsel for Kumar argued that non-compliance was not malicious, stating the superintendent could not verify the applicant’s residential address, a condition characterised as “customary” and “routine”.
Justice Kaurav firmly rejected this defense, noting no residential condition was included in the 11 August order.
The court said that while Kumar attempted to “cleverly… justify the blatant abuse of the powers vested in the office of the jail superintendent, by making references to catch phrases such as ‘customary’ and ‘routine’”, he was attempting to “impose conditions over and above those imposed by the court”.
The high court emphasised the severe constitutional impact of the jail administration’s obstinacy: “The acts of the jail authority have caused a citizen, 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 judge held that Kumar’s conduct of “imposing additional conditions which are at the teeth of the order of this Court” dated 11 August amounted to a “wilful violation of the order” and initiated contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Kumar accepted the notice and was granted time to respond ahead of the next hearing on 22 September.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: In UAPA bail cases, ‘trial will take time’ is losing currency. Courts are saying: not indefinitely