Court Rules Parole Cannot Be Refused Solely on Nepali Citizenship When Family Lives in India

The court has held that the nationality of a prisoner, specifically being a citizen of Nepal, cannot by itself justify a denial of parole when the inmate's immediate family lives in India. The judgment emphasizes that parole decisions must be grounded in the merits of the case and the humanitarian considerations of family proximity, rather than the convict's foreign citizenship. Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces the principle of equal treatment under the law, irrespective of a detainee's origin. This decision is expected to influence future parole applications involving foreign nationals with family ties in India, ensuring that decisions are based on substantive criteria rather than nationality alone. The ruling also underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals while balancing security concerns.

The case arose after a Nepali citizen, whose spouse and children are settled in India, sought parole to be with his family. Authorities initially rejected the request, citing his foreign citizenship as a factor. Upon appeal, the court examined the legal framework governing parole and concluded that citizenship alone does not constitute a valid ground for refusal. The judgment calls for a more nuanced assessment that includes the welfare of the convict's family and the nature of the offence.