New Delhi, September 17, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the Superintendent of Tihar Jail for allegedly failing to comply with its order directing the release of an undertrial prisoner on parole, observing that the jail authority’s conduct had resulted in a continued deprivation of the petitioner’s liberty.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed Dr Pawan Kumar, Superintendent of Central Jail-02, Tihar, to file a response explaining why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court also directed him to remain personally present at the next hearing on September 22.
The proceedings stem from a petition filed by Anwar Hussain challenging the rejection of his parole application and seeking his release for eight weeks. Hussain had spent five years and five months as an undertrial prisoner and sought parole to pursue legal remedies before the Supreme Court after his criminal appeal was dismissed.
On July 30, the High Court had directed that Hussain be released on parole for four weeks, subject to conditions to be imposed by the competent authority.
However, the court subsequently found that the required conditions were not imposed and Hussain remained in custody despite the release order.
“The acts of the Jail Authority have caused a citizen of this Country, who had remained under-trial for a period of 5 years 5 months, to continue to remain behind bars despite an order of a Constitutional Court directing his release,” the High Court observed.
The petitioner was subsequently compelled to approach the court seeking directions for implementation of the July 30 order.
On August 11, the High Court modified the operative portion of its earlier order and specified conditions for Hussain’s release on parole.
According to the order, when Hussain’s wife approached the jail authorities to fulfil the conditions and secure his release, she was allegedly told that prison officials would not act on the August 11 order unless they received it directly from the High Court.
Justice Kaurav took serious exception to the explanation, noting that the August 11 order was a digitally signed public document whose authenticity could be verified.
“The Jail Authority, in an attempt to frustrate the order of the Court, and prevent the petitioner from being released, seems to have given a flimsy and unjustifiable reason,” the court said.
The High Court had earlier directed the Jail Superintendent to appear personally and explain his conduct, while also asking him to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
In response, Dr Kumar submitted that his actions were not motivated by ill intent or malice. He said he had not complied with the August 11 order because he was unable to verify the address where Hussain was to reside, describing such verification as “customary” and “routine”.
The court, however, questioned why the Superintendent had not applied his experience concerning such conditions when the July 30 order had already directed Hussain’s release subject to conditions being imposed by the jail authority.
“While Dr Kumar has cleverly tried to justify the blatant abuse of the powers vested in the office of the Jail Superintendent, by making references to catch phrases such as ‘customary’ and ‘routine’, the fact of the matter remains that he wants the Court to allow the Jail Authority to impose conditions over and above those imposed by the Court in its order dated 11.08.2026,” Justice Kaurav observed.
The court further noted that the August 11 order did not contain any condition concerning Hussain’s place of residence and held that the jail authority’s conduct had resulted in the continued deprivation of his liberty.
“Owing to flimsy and untenable excuses of the Jail Authority and Dr Kumar, a mockery has been made of the legal system,” the court said, adding that Hussain’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution had been violated.
Finding that Dr Kumar’s conduct, including the alleged imposition of conditions beyond those specified in the August 11 order, amounted to wilful disobedience of the High Court’s directions, Justice Kaurav initiated contempt proceedings.
Dr Kumar accepted the contempt notice and was granted time to file his response.
FOLLOW NOW
