Right to Private Legal Counsel for Filing SLP Justifies Parole for POCSO Convicts Despite General Statutory Prohibitions.

The petitioner, a convict under Sections 5(m)(n)(p) and 6 of the POCSO Act, was sentenced to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment

Having served six years of his sentence, he applied for parole to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the upholding of his conviction and sentence

The competent authority rejected his request on December 5, 2025, citing Rule 1211(VII) of the Delhi Prison Rules, which restricts parole for POCSO convicts

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the ground to file an SLP constitutes an exception to the general prohibitory rule

1. Whether a convict under the POCSO Act can be granted parole for the purpose of filing a Special Leave Petition despite the restrictive provisions of the Delhi Prison Rules

2. Whether the availability of legal aid or the possibility of counsel visiting the jail justifies the denial of parole for filing an SLP

The court examined Rule 1211(VII) of the Delhi Prison Rules, which generally prohibits parole for POCSO convicts, in conjunction with Rule 1208(viii), which provides grounds for parole

The court applied the principle of the "right to be effectively heard" as a facet of natural justice and constitutional rights, emphasizing that the right of a prisoner to choose and effectively communicate with private counsel for filing an SLP overrides mechanical administrative restrictions

The court found the rejection of parole by the competent authority to be improper. It dismissed the local police's objection regarding a potential flight risk as "completely mechanical" because no specific reasons or evidence were provided to support such an apprehension

While acknowledging that an SLP could be filed via legal aid or jail visits, the court reasoned that a prisoner's right to choose private counsel must be protected

Furthermore, it observed that the jail’s visitor room is not a "conducive environment" for the effective communication required between a prisoner and counsel to prepare such a petition

Consequently, the court held that denying parole in this context would deprive the petitioner of his right to be effectively heard by the Supreme Court

The holding clarified that the ground to file an SLP serves as a necessary exception to the general bar on parole for POCSO convicts

The release was made subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety, the provision of mobile contact details to Aligarh police, and the submission of a copy of the filed SLP to the Jail Superintendent upon surrender

The court explicitly noted that no further extensions would be granted