30/07/2026
๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป?
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has examined this important question.
In the Mughal and Dragon matter, the Commission imposed a condition that the accused should not be released without its prior permission. This effectively meant that, irrespective of the statutory procedure governing parole or release, the liberty of the accused remained subject to the Commissionโs approval.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court stayed the operation of this condition.
The case raises a significant constitutional issue: Can the liberty of a person be made dependent upon the indefinite permission of a Commission, or must every restriction on personal liberty have clear statutory authority and remain subject to judicial scrutiny?
The order reinforces that restrictions on personal liberty cannot operate indefinitely outside the framework of law. The statutory authority must exercise its powers in accordance with the governing statute, and conditions affecting an individualโs liberty must withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Liberty cannot remain suspended indefinitely merely because an administrative condition says so.
