New Delhi: Delhi High Court has initiated contempt of court proceedings against a superintendent at Tihar jail, taking a dim view of the “flimsy and untenable excuses” he made while delaying the release of a convict on parole despite the court’s directions.Justice Purushaindra K Kaurav said the jail administration made a “mockery” of the legal system. “The acts of the jail authority have caused a citizen of this country, who had remained under trial for a period of five years and five months, to continue to remain behind bars despite an order of a constitutional court directing his release,” the high court said.It directed Pawan Kumar, the jail superintendent, to file his response explaining why he should not be hauled up for contempt of court, while hearing the plea of Anwar Hussain, serving a jail term as a rape convict, whose appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. The court asked Kumar to remain personally present on Sept 22, the next date of hearing.Hussain had initially approached the court challenging the rejection of his parole application by the jail administration and seeking an eight-week parole to finalise legal remedies before the Supreme Court, following the dismissal of his criminal appeal in the high court.In an order passed in July, the high court granted Hussain parole for four weeks, subject to conditions to be imposed by the prison authorities. The inmate remained in custody despite this order since conditions were not imposed by the jail administration.This compelled him to file an application before the high court again, seeking directions for implementation of the July 30 order.In a second round of directions, the high court on Aug 11 modified the earlier order and imposed specific conditions to facilitate his release on parole, but the prison officials refused to budge. They told Hussain’s wife that they won’t act unless they received the order directly from the court, not the family.Taking serious note of this rejection, the court highlighted that the Aug 11 order was a digitally signed public document whose authenticity could easily have been verified. It termed the jail administration’s stand “flimsy and unjustifiable”.It had earlier directed the jail superintendent to appear and explain his conduct. In response, Kumar submitted that his actions were not motivated by malice. He explained that he had not complied with the Aug 11 order because he was unable to verify the address where the petitioner was to reside, describing the requirement as “customary” and “routine”.The court didn’t accept the argument and said it “wonders why the able jail superintendent did not utilise his vast experience of what customary and routine conditions are when the court had originally directed for the release of the petitioner on 30.07.2026 i.e., approximately 1.5 months ago, on the basis of conditions which were to be imposed by the jail authority.”Kumar “cleverly tried to justify the blatant abuse of the powers vested in the office… by making references to catch phrases such as ‘customary’ and ‘routine’,” the court said. “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.”
