‘Mockery has been made of legal system’: Delhi HC initiates contempt proceedings against Tihar Jail Superintendent

New Delhi, Sep 17 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the Superintendent of Tihar Jail for frustrating its order directing the release of an undertrial prisoner on parole, observing that the jail authority's actions had made a "mockery" of the legal system and violated the petitioner's fundamental rights.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed Dr Pawan Kumar, Jail Superintendent of Central Jail-02, Tihar, to file his response explaining why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

He has also been directed to remain personally present on the next date of hearing, scheduled for September 22.

The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Anwar Hussain, challenging the rejection of his parole application by the jail authority concerned and seeking his release for eight weeks. The petitioner had spent five years and five months as an undertrial prisoner and sought parole to pursue legal remedies before the Supreme Court following the dismissal of his criminal appeal.

In an order passed on July 30, the High Court had directed the petitioner's release on parole for four weeks, subject to conditions to be imposed by the competent authority.

However, Justice Kaurav found that the conditions were not imposed and the petitioner continued to remain in custody despite the release direction.

"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 Delhi High Court observed.

It further recorded that the petitioner was compelled to file an application seeking directions for implementation of the July 30 order, after the jail authority failed to impose the required conditions.

Subsequently, in an order passed on August 11, the High Court modified the operative portion of its earlier order and imposed specific conditions for the petitioner's release on parole.

According to the order, when the petitioner's wife approached the jail authority to fulfil the conditions and secure his release, she was allegedly informed that the prison officials would not act upon the August 11 order unless it received the same directly from the High Court.

Taking serious note of the explanation, Justice Kaurav observed that the August 11 order was a digitally signed public document whose authenticity could easily be verified.

"The Jail Authority, in an attempt to frustrate the order of the Court, and prevent the petitioner from being released, seems to have given a flimsy and unjustifiable reason," the High Court said. It had earlier directed the Jail Superintendent to appear personally and explain his conduct, while also requiring him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

In response, D. Kumar submitted that his actions were not motivated by ill intent or malice. He explained that he had not complied with the August 11 order because he was unable to verify the address where the petitioner was to reside, describing the requirement as "customary" and "routine".

However, the Delhi High Court questioned why the Jail Superintendent had not utilised his experience regarding such conditions when the July 30 order had already directed the petitioner's release subject to conditions to be imposed by the jail authority.

"While Dr Kumar has cleverly tried to 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', the fact of the matter remains that he wants the Court to allow the Jail Authority to impose conditions over and above those imposed by the Court in its order dated 11.08.2026," Justice Kaurav observed.

The High Court observed that the August 11 order contained no condition relating to the petitioner's place of residence, and held that the jail authority's conduct had resulted in the continued deprivation of the petitioner's liberty.

"Owing to flimsy and untenable excuses of the Jail Authority and Dr Kumar, a mockery has been made of the legal system," the order said, adding that the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution had been violated.

Finding that Dr Kumar's conduct, including the imposition of additional conditions contrary to the August 11 order, amounted to a wilful violation of the High Court's directions, Justice Kaurav initiated contempt proceedings against him. Dr Kumar accepted the contempt notice and was granted time to file his response.

Source: IANS