Court Rules that Availability of Free Legal Aid in Jail Cannot Deny Convict's Right to Engage Counsel of Choice; Parole Granted for 30 Days Subject to Conditions
In a significant judgment dated October 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Mini Pushkarna, granted parole to Mahender Rathore, a convict sentenced under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, allowing him 30 days parole to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging his conviction. This decision reaffirms the valuable legal right of a convict to pursue remedies through counsel of their choice, irrespective of the availability of free legal aid within prison.
Mahender Rathore, currently incarcerated in Central Jail No. 08, Tihar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) and three years for criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), both sentences to run concurrently. His appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on August 5, 2026.
Seeking to file an SLP before the Supreme Court, Rathore applied for parole to arrange financial resources and engage a counsel of his choice. However, the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi rejected his parole application on the ground that he belonged to a poor segment of society and free legal aid was available in prison.
The Court referred to Rule 1208(viii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which explicitly recognizes the filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court as a legitimate ground for parole. The Court also cited precedent decisions including Bijender v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024), Neeraj Bhatt v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), and Ved Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), which emphasized that the right of a convict to effectively pursue legal remedies by filing an SLP through counsel of their own choice is a fundamental right.
Rejecting the State's contention that availability of free legal aid suffices, the Court underscored that the right to engage a counsel of choice cannot be withheld merely because legal aid services exist in jail. The Court observed that filing an SLP in the apex court is the last hope for a convict to challenge their conviction and incarceration.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the parole for a period of 30 days from the date of release subject to stringent conditions including furnishing personal bond and surety of Rs. 10,000 each, providing residential address and mobile number to jail authorities and local police, weekly reporting to the jurisdictional SHO, surrendering after the parole period, and submitting a copy of the SLP to the Jail Superintendent and the High Court record. The convict was also prohibited from indulging in any criminal activity during the parole.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the constitutional right to legal remedy and effective representation transcends socio-economic status and institutional conveniences. It affirms that parole cannot be denied simply on the basis of free legal aid availability and highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair access to justice even for convicts.
Bottom Line:
Parole - Filing of Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court - Parole cannot be denied merely because free legal aid is available in jail - Right of convict to pursue SLP through counsel of choice is a valuable right - Petitioner granted 30 days parole subject to conditions.
Statutory provision(s):
Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 Rule 1208(viii), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Indian Penal Code Sections 376, 506
Mahender Rathore v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998830
