The Supreme Court has ruled that authorities cannot keep a prisoner in custody after a valid judicial order grants parole and all release conditions are fulfilled.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the State must immediately comply with a release order unless a higher court stays or sets it aside.
The Court emphasised that administrative delays and internal discussions about filing an appeal cannot justify continued detention.
Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench awarded ₹11 lakh compensation to Rajasthan convict Daudayal for being kept in prison for 24 days beyond a valid parole order.
Background of the Case
An Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicted Daudayal in 1988 for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II read with Section 149, and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Rajasthan High Court later upheld the conviction and sentence in 2021.
Authorities took him into custody on December 23, 2021.
After serving more than three years of his sentence, Daudayal applied for permanent parole on December 3, 2023.
Authorities rejected the application on January 18, 2024. They stated that he had not completed the three stages of regular parole required under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Parole
Daudayal challenged the rejection before the Rajasthan High Court.
On November 5, 2024, a Single Judge allowed his petition and directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties of ₹50,000 each.
Daudayal complied with all conditions.
The concerned court verified the sureties on November 13, 2024.
Despite this, the State did not release him.
As a result, he filed a habeas corpus petition before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench ordered his immediate release on December 6, 2024.
By then, he had spent 24 additional days in custody after completing all release formalities.
Claim for Compensation Before the Supreme Court
Daudayal approached the Supreme Court seeking compensation for the 24-day period of continued imprisonment.
He argued that authorities had illegally detained him despite a valid and operative release order.
The appeal raised important questions about personal liberty, enforcement of court orders, and State accountability.
Advocates Tushar Bathija, Rishabh Dheer, and Aishwarya Singh represented the appellant.
Advocate S. Udaya Kumar Sagar appeared for the State of Rajasthan along with Kshitij Mittal and Mayank Sharma.
Court Defines Illegal Detention
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional meaning of illegal detention.
The Bench held that any deprivation of liberty without lawful authority amounts to illegal detention.
The Court observed:
“The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention.”
The judges also reviewed the concept of parole and its role in India’s reformative prison system.
Relying on earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that parole helps prisoners maintain social and family ties while serving their sentences.
‘Obey First, Appeal Later’
The State argued that the Single Judge’s parole order conflicted with Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.
The Supreme Court rejected this justification.
The Bench noted that the State had neither challenged the order nor obtained a stay against it.
The Court applied the principle of “obey first, appeal later.”
It held that authorities must comply with a judicial order unless a superior court suspends or overturns it.
The Bench stated:
“Once parole had been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention.”
The Court further observed:
“A judicial order or decree remains in operation unless stayed, modified, or set aside.”
Court Criticises Bureaucratic Delay
The Bench strongly criticised the State’s conduct.
It held that bureaucratic indecision cannot override a citizen’s constitutional rights.
The Court remarked:
“The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter.”
It added that the State cannot continue restricting personal liberty merely because officials are considering whether to file an appeal.
Habeas Corpus Remains a Vital Safeguard
The Supreme Court also examined the constitutional importance of habeas corpus.
The Bench traced its evolution from the Magna Carta to modern Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
The Court reaffirmed that habeas corpus remains one of the strongest safeguards against unlawful detention by the State.
Convicts Also Enjoy Constitutional Protection
The State argued that a convicted person cannot claim the same protection available to someone unlawfully arrested.
The Court rejected this contention.
It held that once a lawful release order comes into effect and the prisoner fulfils all conditions, authorities lose any legal basis for continued detention.
The Bench observed:
“Just because a person had been convicted does not mean that his rights weigh less on the scales of justice.”
Compensation Under Article 21
The Court reaffirmed that compensation for illegal detention is a recognised public law remedy under Article 21.
Relying on landmark decisions such as Rudal Shah, Bhim Singh, Nilabati Behera, and Nambi Narayanan, the Bench held that courts must provide meaningful remedies when the State unlawfully curtails personal liberty.
The judges observed that merely ordering release would not adequately address a constitutional violation.
Supreme Court Awards ₹11 Lakh
The Court found no justification for keeping Daudayal in custody for 24 days after verification of his sureties.
It held that the State’s internal decision-making process regarding a possible appeal could not justify continued imprisonment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the State of Rajasthan to deposit ₹11 lakh compensation directly into the appellant’s bank account.
Case Details
Cause Title: Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 599
