In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared that Gurmeet Ram Rahim, a convict in a rape case, cannot be granted parole without court permission. This verdict follows Rahim’s recent 50-day parole granted in January, marking his seventh parole within a span of nearly 10 months and his ninth in the past four years.
The High Court’s directive mandates the Haryana government to ensure Rahim’s surrender on March 10, which marks the conclusion of his current parole. Furthermore, the court has instructed the state government to seek prior permission from the court before considering any future parole requests from the convicted rapist.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim, a controversial figure, was convicted in a high-profile rape case and has been serving his sentence. Despite his incarceration, Rahim has been granted multiple paroles over the years, raising concerns about the frequency and reasons behind such leniency.
Critics argue that the repeated granting of parole to a convicted rapist undermines the justice system and sends the wrong message to society, particularly to survivors of sexual assault. They question the rationale behind the frequency of parole granted to Rahim and demand stricter adherence to legal procedures.
The High Court’s ruling signifies a shift towards stricter oversight and regulation regarding parole for individuals convicted of serious crimes. By requiring court permission for future parole requests, the judiciary aims to ensure greater accountability and prevent potential misuse of the parole system.
The decision also highlights the importance of upholding the rights of survivors and ensuring that perpetrators of sexual violence are held accountable for their actions. It sends a message that the justice system will not tolerate leniency towards those convicted of such heinous crimes.
Moving forward, the Haryana government is expected to adhere to the High Court’s directives and seek court permission before considering any parole requests from Gurmeet Ram Rahim or any other convicted individual. This ruling sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of parole applications, particularly in cases involving serious criminal offenses.
Comments