The Delhi High Court has taken the significant step of initiating contempt of court proceedings against a Tihar Jail superintendent who failed to comply with court orders regarding the release of an inmate on parole. This action was prompted by the case of Anwar Hussain vs. State NCT of Delhi, where the superintendent’s non-compliance was highlighted by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
Hussain, who has been an undertrial in custody for over five years, encountered resistance when the jail superintendent ignored the court’s directive to release him on parole. The court had previously approved Hussain’s parole, contingent upon the setting of terms and conditions by the jail authorities. However, instead of establishing these conditions, the superintendent was accused of using “flimsy and untenable excuses” to delay Hussain’s release, as found by the court.
In a stern rebuke, the court labeled the superintendent’s actions as a clear misuse of power, which infringed upon Hussain’s constitutional right to personal liberty. The court’s order dated July 30 had granted parole for four weeks, allowing the superintendent to set appropriate conditions. Despite this, the superintendent failed to act, prompting Hussain to return to court seeking redress.
On August 11, the court intervened again, this time setting the terms for Hussain’s parole itself. Yet, the superintendent refused to act on this order, insisting on receiving it directly from the court, despite its status as a digitally signed public document. Justice Kaurav harshly criticized this conduct, noting that the superintendent’s refusal to release Hussain seemed to be based on “flimsy and unjustifiable” grounds.
Consequently, Hussain approached the court once more, leading to a directive for the jail superintendent to appear and explain his actions. The superintendent defended his conduct by citing the inability to verify Hussain’s address, a purportedly standard procedure. However, the court found this explanation unconvincing, emphasizing that the August 11 order contained no such residency condition.
More Read
In its ruling, the court stated that the superintendent’s attempt to impose additional conditions on Hussain’s release was a direct violation of the August 11 order and constituted a willful breach of court directives. The court remarked, “While Dr. (Pawan) Kumar has cleverly tried to justify the blatant abuse of the powers vested in the office of the Jail Superintendent, by referencing ‘customary’ and ‘routine’ procedures, it is clear that he seeks to exceed the conditions established by the court.”
As a result, the court has initiated contempt proceedings against the superintendent, with the next hearing scheduled for September 22. Advocate Shannu Baghel represents Hussain, while Advocates Sangeet Sibou and Rahul Tyagi appear for the Delhi Police.
