R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner-convicted prisoner under the T.A.D.A. Act-sought his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958' for short). But, the same has been denied to him. Hence this petition before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dt. 30.11.2002 the Judge, Designated Court, T.A.D.A., Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A., under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B(1)B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16.07.2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dt. 28.10.1998, the benefit of Remission, Parole and Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under N.D.P.S. Act and T.A.D.A. Act. However, vide order dt. 29.04.2000, the said letter was revoked. Hence the benefit of Parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission was denied to prisoners convicted under the aforementioned Acts. According to the petitioner such a denial is arbitrary and unreasonable as no reasons have been stated by the State for denying the said benefits. Vide notice dt. 26.10.2006 the petitioner had requested that he be released on his first regular parole of 20 days under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. However, the same has been denied to him on the ground that after circular dt. 02.05.2000, prisoners convicted under the T.A.D.A. Act are not entitled to be released on parole.
3. Mr. Suresh Shani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 enumerates the list of prisoners who are ineligible for grant of parole under the Rules. Such list does not contain the T.A.D.A. Act. Therefore, the prisoners convicted under the T.A.D.A. Act are ipso facto entitled for parole under the Rules of 1958. The circular dt. 02.05.2000 issued by the Government is against the Rules. For, the circular cannot modify the Rules.
4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Dy.G.A., has supported both the circular as well as the action of the jail authorities in denying the petitioner's frist regular parole.
5. We have heard both the learned Counsels and have perused the impugned circulars placed before us.
6. According to Rule 13 of Rules of 1958 parole is not a right which a prisoner can claim. In fact, parole-part of the reformative theory, is a privilege given by the State to the convicted prisoners. While granting parole, the State has to keep in mind certain cardinal facts i.e. the nature of the crime committed, the conditions in which the crime was committed, the impact of the crime committed on the society at large, the possibility of the prisoner absconding in case he is let out on parole for a limited period, the possibility of his repeating a crime of a similar nature while out on parole etc. Since the parole is a privilege which is given to the convicted prisoner such a privilege is not applicable carte blanche. Certain categories of convicted prisoners can be denied the privilege of parole by the State.
7. Remission and parole are not actual rights of the prisoners. In fact, they are privilege granted by the State to the convicted prisoners. Therefore, a convicted prisoner cannot claim these two privileges as their vested rights. Jurisprudentially, there is a difference between right and privilege. Rights are classified under two categories of either being a fundamental right under the Constitution, or a statutory right granted by a Statute. On the other hand, a privilege is granted by the State under certain conditions and privilege by their very nature can equally be taken away by the State. Whereas rights are universal in nature, privileges can be given to certain specific groups and need not necessarily be universal in its application. Remission and parole are part of the reformative theory of punishment. Since they are privileges granted by the State, it is not necessary that all the convicted prisoners must have the privilege extended to them. Certain categories of prisoners can be refused these privileges. In case the refusal is based on intelligent, differentia and has a nexus to the object of the Rules, therefore, the refusal is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since a privilege can be denied under the law, it is procedure established by law, therefore, such a denial would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the freedom of movement is cirbbed, cabined and confined by the very act of imprisoning a prisoner. Therefore, the personal liberty is curtailed by a judicial order under a procedure established by law. It is a policy decision of the State to decide the category of prisoners who are entitled to the privilege of remission and parole and those who are dis-entitled for such a privilege. Considering the fact that T.A.D.A. was a law enacted for the purpose of controlling the terrorist activities in India, considering the fact that terrosit acitivities shake the very foundation of the nation, considering the fact that such activities are an attack on the integrity and unity of the nation, considering the fact that such activities entail the killing of innocent women and children, considering the fact that such activities poses a serious threat to the survival of the nation as a whole, the State has rightly deprived priosners convicted under T.A.D.A. of the privilege and remission and parole and Open Camp. Those, who conspire and threaten the nation do not deserve any mercy from the law or from the State.
8. By very act of incarceration personal liberty of a convicted prisoner is curtailed. Therefore, a prisoner cannot claim parole as a right. He only has a right of consideration by the Advisory committee. But such a right of consideration can be curtailed by the State. Considering the fact that the world over people are battling with the scepter of terrorism, considering that the India has been living under the shadow of terrorism for the last three decades, it is, indeed, in the national interest to deny the benefit of parole to prisoner convicted under the T.A.D.A. Therefore, the circular dt. 29.04.2000 is certainly vaild. Hence, the jail administration is legally justified in denying the parole to the petitioner.
9. In the result, there is no force in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.