Supreme Court of India· 29 May 2026

Is a writ of habeas corpus maintainable where a convict lawfully in prison is not released after a court has granted him parole?

Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2026 INSC 599 · SLP(Crl)No.5036 of 2025
Coram: Sanjay Karol; Augustine George Masih

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.21 Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. The writ is available as a remedy in all cases of wrongful deprivation of personal liberty, and detention or imprisonment which is incapable of legal justification is the basis of jurisdiction in habeas corpus, so it is maintainable against any form of detention. Once parole has been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.21 — Art.32 — Art.226 — Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 — r.9 — Illegal detention — Habeas corpus — Compensation as a public law remedy — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Illegal detention — Meaning — Held: The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention. Even where a law permits detention, it becomes illegal if the procedure followed is not just, fair, and reasonable. (¶7) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Habeas corpus — Non-release after parole granted — Held further: Habeas corpus is available in all cases of wrongful deprivation of personal liberty and is maintainable against any form of detention. Once parole has been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention. (¶11) Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 — r.9 — Release order — Obey first, appeal later — Held further: A judicial order remains in operation unless stayed, modified, or set aside, and the mere filing of an appeal does not keep it in abeyance. A State that never challenged the release order cannot question its legality at a belated stage. (¶9) Constitution of India — Art.21 — Compensation — Recognised public law remedy — Held further: Payment of compensation is an acceptable and recognised public law remedy, and the liberty of an individual cannot be placed sub-par to the State's bureaucratic processes of deciding whether to file an appeal. Rs.11,00,000/- awarded for twenty-four days of illegal custody; appeal allowed. (¶12)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 11Having perused the judicial pronouncements as above, we now move to the main issue at hand i.e., the question of compensation. The respondent State has opposed the appellant’s reliance on some of these judgments by contending that they pertained to people under unlawful detention by the State which the appellant was not since he was in fact in prison under the due process of law and so these judgments are distinguishable on facts. We do not find merit in this submission for the para referred to by us above from Halbury’s Laws of England makes abundantly clear that habeas corpus would be maintainable against any form of detention. Once parole had been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention. That apart, reference to these judgments is to establish clearly that payment of compensation is an acceptable and recognised public law remedy. [See: Sube Singh v. State of Haryana[^27]] There can be no qualms with this position. A few judgments of this Court are ubiquitous with compensation under public law, and so, naturally, we must discuss those first.

Acts & Sections

Art.21 Constitution of IndiaArt.226 Constitution of IndiaArt.32 Constitution of Indiar.9 Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958s.304 Part II Indian Penal Code, 1860s.148 Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Constitution of India, what constitutes illegal detention?Does the mere filing, or the contemplation, of an appeal by the State suspend a court order directing a prisoner's release?Under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can monetary compensation be awarded for an established infringement of Article 21?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections