In a landmark judgment in Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 1976/2025, the Delhi High Court on 12 November 2025 permitted an 81-year-old, bedridden convict to serve the remainder of her sentence at home and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to frame a comprehensive policy for incapacitated prisoners. The Court held that convicts who, due to age or grave medical conditions, are physically incapable of returning to prison after parole cannot be left in a legal vacuum merely because existing prison rules do not contemplate such exceptional situations.
This decision—rendered by Justice Amit Mahajan—marks a major development in India’s evolving jurisprudence on humane treatment of prisoners, harmonising statutory limits with the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Kailash Wati, was convicted in 1987 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC along with her husband and son. She was sentenced in 2000 to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Her appeal was dismissed in 2016, and the Supreme Court refused to interfere in 2017.
Her personal circumstances, however, became extraordinary over time:
- Her son died in 2015.
- Her husband died in 2017 inside jail of cardiac arrest.
- The petitioner fractured her thigh and hip inside the prison in 2017, requiring two surgeries.
- Multiple medical boards confirmed that she remained completely bedridden, unable to walk or manage basic daily activities.
Since October 2017, she had been repeatedly granted parole due to her deteriorating medical condition. She eventually served four years and seven days out of her seven-year sentence.
In 2025, she sought a 12-month extension of parole—but the case raised crucial legal questions: Can parole be extended indefinitely? If not, what happens to prisoners who cannot physically return to jail?
Issues Before the Court
The case posed four core issues:
1. Can parole be extended indefinitely in medical emergencies?
The Delhi Prison Rules strictly limit parole to:
- 8 weeks, extendable by another 8 weeks only in extraordinary situations such as epidemics or natural disasters.
Thus, extension for several years—as in the petitioner’s case—falls outside the statutory scheme.
2. Can an incapacitated elderly prisoner be considered for premature release under Rule 1246A?
Rule 1246A, inserted in 2024, allows remission for convicts:
- aged above 70,
- physically incapacitated, and
- having served 50% of their sentence.
The petitioner met these criteria.
3. What is the impact of a long-pending mercy plea?
Her clemency petition, with the Lt. Governor’s recommendation, had been pending with the Union Home Ministry since 2018.
4. Can the Court allow “home confinement” as a substitute for prison confinement?
This question touched upon constitutional powers under Article 226 and emerging jurisprudence on human rights of prisoners.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner
- She is 81 years old, bedridden, and physically incapable of surrendering.
- The prison administration cannot provide round-the-clock care suitable for her medical needs.
- She seeks 12 more months of parole solely to survive with dignity.
State
- Rule 1246A enables premature release of incapacitated convicts.
- A medical board and evaluation committee must first assess and recommend her case.
- The State sought four weeks to examine the feasibility of premature remission.
Amicus Curiae (Vivek Gurnani)
He offered four possible solutions:
- Premature release under Rule 1246A
- Expedited decision on mercy petition pending since 2018
- Exercising Article 161 power if the Lt. Governor’s recommendation is favourable
- Allowing confinement at home, as done by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts in exceptional circumstances for terminally ill or incapacitated prisoners.
Court’s Analysis
1. Limits of Parole Cannot Be Ignored
The Court acknowledged:
- Parole is not a right but a temporary privilege.
- It cannot be extended beyond statutory limits, even on humanitarian grounds.
- The Court cannot rewrite or expand the Delhi Prison Rules under Article 226.
Thus, the request for a further 12-month parole extension could not legally be granted.
2. The Petitioner Cannot Physically Return to Jail
Justice Mahajan emphasised:
- Sending an aged, bedridden woman back to jail would be inhumane.
- A convict does not lose fundamental rights by virtue of conviction.
- The State must respect the dignity of elderly and incapacitated prisoners.
3. Premature Release Will Take Time
While Rule 1246A applies, its process involves:
- Medical board assessment
- Evaluation committee review
- Government approval
This could take weeks or months. Meanwhile, the petitioner was unfit to surrender.
4. Home Confinement as a Viable, Humanitarian Solution
Drawing from:
The Court, in its own motion: In Re: Overcrowding in Prisons, WPA 5440 of 2020 (Calcutta High Court) — where the Court held that terminally ill prisoners may, in exceptional circumstances, be confined at home under supervision.
M. Rajeshwari v. Additional Director General of Police & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 420 (Madras High Court) — where the convict, due to severe health deterioration, was permitted to be kept under home confinement pending final orders under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules.
Supreme Court’s judgment in Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, (2022) 13 SCC 542 — where the Court analysed the concept of “house arrest” and recognised it as a legitimate form of custody under Indian law.
Delhi High Court relied on these precedents to note that, in extraordinary circumstances involving age-related incapacity or severe medical conditions, home confinement can serve the purpose of imprisonment while safeguarding human dignity.
Final Judgment
I. Petitioner Allowed to Serve Remainder of Sentence at Home
The Court directed:
- She shall be confined to her home under her son’s care.
- She may not leave her residence, except for medical treatment.
- She must furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties.
This effectively replaces prison imprisonment with home confinement until the State decides on premature release.
II. Premature Release to Be Processed in Four Weeks
The Court ordered the authorities to:
- Examine her case for remission under Rule 1246A.
- Complete the process preferably within four weeks.
III. Directive to Government: Frame Policy for Incapacitated Convicts
The Court highlighted a systemic problem:
- Several convicts may be medically unable to surrender after parole.
- The Prison Rules do not provide any mechanism for such situations.
Therefore, the Court directed:
- The Government of NCT of Delhi must frame rules or amend prison regulations to deal with incapacitated prisoners unable to return to jail.
This direction is likely to have far-reaching implications across Delhi’s prison system.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Kailash Wati v. State (2025) is a path-breaking acknowledgement of the rights of elderly, incapacitated convicts. By allowing the petitioner to serve her remaining sentence at home and directing the State to frame comprehensive rules for such situations, the Court has filled a crucial humanitarian gap in prison administration.
The judgment harmonises legal boundaries, administrative realities, and constitutional compassion—reflecting a sensitive approach to justice, especially for those who cannot advocate for themselves.
In a justice system often criticised for delay and rigidity, this decision stands out as an example of judicial innovation anchored in human dignity.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams