In Brief
The appellant, a life convict convicted under TADA for supplying explosives for serial bombings in 1993, applied for twenty days' parole. The District Parole Advisory Committee, various state authorities, and the Ministry of Home Affairs all rejected his application. The High Court dismissed his writ petitions, leading to this Supreme Court appeal. The Court held that while mere conviction for a serious crime cannot automatically bar parole, proper consideration of relevant factors—including public safety risks, threat to witnesses, danger to the convict's life due to public anger, and potential social unrest—justifies rejection. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parole decisions must balance reformation objectives with public security, and may be reconsidered later if circumstances improve.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.