9 years, 11 months served, 1 month left — and parole was denied anyway.

Nine years, eleven months, and a parole that almost wasn't

Harish Yadav had spent nearly a decade inside. Convicted under the NDPS Act, he had served 9 years and 11 months of a 10-year sentence. One month remained. But there was a catch: a fine of an unspecified amount, and a default clause — six months of simple imprisonment if he didn't pay it. He needed to get out, arrange the money, and avoid those extra six months. So he applied for parole. The Lt. Governor of Delhi said no. The ground: Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, which generally bars parole for NDPS convicts. The Delhi High Court, in Harish Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024:DHC:1931), had a different view.

The man who had almost served his time

Harish Yadav was convicted by a trial court under the NDPS Act. The sentence: 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, plus a fine. If he failed to pay the fine, he would serve an additional six months of simple imprisonment. By the time he moved his parole application, he had already served 9 years and 11 months. His jail conduct was satisfactory. He had been granted emergency parole earlier — and he had returned on time. He had not misused that liberty.

On December 18, 2023, he applied for three months of parole. His stated grounds: to re-establish family ties, and to arrange funds to pay the fine imposed by the trial court. The Competent Authority — the Lt. Governor of Delhi — rejected the application. The reason: Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018. That rule lists categories of prisoners who "shall not" be granted parole, unless the Competent Authority finds "special circumstances." NDPS convicts are on that list. The Authority found that "re-establishing family ties" was too generic. No special circumstances existed, it said.

Yadav then approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. He argued that the rejection was unjustified. He had almost completed his sentence. He needed to arrange the fine money. He had a clean record inside. The Court agreed.

What Rule 1211 actually says

The Court reproduced the text of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018. It reads:

"In the following cases, parole shall not be granted, except if in the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist for grant of parole; i. Prisoners convicted under sedition, terrorist activities and NDPS Act."

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, sitting singly, parsed this carefully. The rule does not say "parole shall never be granted." It says "shall not be granted, except if... special circumstances exist." That "except" is the key. The Competent Authority has discretion. The question was: did the Authority exercise that discretion properly?

The Authority's error

The Court found that the Authority had not. The Authority had dismissed the ground of "re-establishing family ties" as generic. But the Court noted that the petitioner had also sought parole to arrange funds for the fine. That was not generic. That was a concrete, time-bound need. If he did not pay the fine, he would serve an additional six months. That was a real consequence. And he had already served nearly the entire substantive sentence.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had been granted emergency parole earlier and had surrendered on time. His jail conduct was satisfactory. There was no indication that he would misuse parole. The Authority had not considered these factors. It had simply applied the bar and stopped.

The precedents that mattered

The Court relied on two recent decisions. The first was Rakesh Kumar v. State Govt. of Delhi and Anr. (W.P.(CRL) 60/2024, decided on 13.02.2024). That case held that the bar on judicial intervention in parole matters does not affect the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, or the Supreme Court's powers under Articles 32, 136, and 142. If parole has been "unjustifiably refused," the constitutional courts can step in.

The second was Sukhvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (W.P.(CRL) 1070/2020, order dated 14.10.2020). There, parole was granted for eight weeks to a convict under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Act — a drug-related offence — despite a similar statutory bar. The Court in that case found that special circumstances existed. The Delhi High Court in Harish Yadav found the same logic applied here.

The doctrine: discretion, not a dead end

The ratio of this judgment is straightforward but important. Rule 1211 does not create an absolute bar. It creates a gate with a key. The key is "special circumstances." And "special circumstances" cannot be read so narrowly that it becomes impossible for an NDPS convict to ever get parole. The Competent Authority must actually consider the individual facts: the length of sentence served, conduct inside, prior use of parole, and the specific reason for the request.

Here, the specific reason — arranging funds to pay the fine — was held to be a sufficient special circumstance. The Court reasoned that if a convict cannot pay the fine, he faces additional imprisonment. That additional imprisonment is a direct consequence of non-payment. Allowing him temporary release to arrange the money serves the purpose of the fine itself. It also avoids the absurdity of a man who has served 9 years and 11 months being locked up for another six months simply because he couldn't find the money from inside.

The Court also reaffirmed that the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted by prison rules. Even where the executive has discretion, the High Court can intervene if that discretion is exercised arbitrarily or without proper consideration.

THE PLAY: When challenging a parole rejection under Rule 1211, don't just argue that the Authority was wrong — show that the Authority failed to consider specific, concrete factors like near-completion of sentence, satisfactory conduct, and a time-bound need (such as arranging fine payment) that constitute "special circumstances" under the rule itself.

What this means for practitioners

For advocates handling parole applications for NDPS convicts in Delhi, this judgment is a useful tool. The key takeaway: do not treat Rule 1211 as a dead end. The rule itself contemplates exceptions. The burden is on the convict to show special circumstances. But "special circumstances" is not an impossibly high bar. It means something specific, something beyond the ordinary. Arranging fine payment is specific. So is a medical emergency. So is a family crisis. The Authority must consider these individually.

If the Authority rejects the application without addressing these specifics, the High Court will step in. The Rakesh Kumar precedent makes that clear. And the Sukhvinder Kaur precedent shows that even convicts under drug-related offences can get parole if the circumstances warrant it.

For founders and CFOs who may have employees or associates caught in the criminal justice system, this judgment is a reminder that prison rules are not always as rigid as they appear. Even where a rule says "shall not," there is often a safety valve. The key is to identify the specific, concrete reason for the request — and to document it thoroughly.

The bottom line

Harish Yadav got his parole. Three weeks, not the three months he asked for. But three weeks to arrange the fine money, to avoid those extra six months. The Court directed his release on a personal bond, with the condition that he surrender immediately after the parole period ends. The petition was disposed of.

For every advocate who reads this: when you see Rule 1211 cited against your client, do not fold. Read the rule again. It says "except if... special circumstances exist." Then find the special circumstance. It might be the fine. It might be the medical report. It might be the near-completion of the sentence. But find it, plead it, and if the Authority ignores it, take it to the High Court. The jurisdiction is there. The precedents are there. And now, this judgment is there too.