THE denial of an under-trial prisoner’s parole application to attend the funeral of his wife and only son has raised questions about legal reforms as the decision reflects an indifference towards prisoner’s rights. The family of the the under-trial prisoner on January 24 submitted an application for parole to the Bagerhat jail to attend the funeral of his wife and nine-month-old son. A murder case has been filed with the police and the bodies have been buried in their family graveyard while the father was only able to bid a brief farewell at the gate of the Jashore central jail. The prisoner, a leader of the now banned Chhatra League, accused in more than 10 cases related to the violence during the July uprising, was initially detained in the Bagerhat jail and was later transferred to the Jashore central jail. The family, therefore, filed the parole application with the Bagerhat deputy commissioner, but he denied the application on the grounds that they are not the right authority. It appears that the authorities concerned relied on bureaucratic technicalities and failed to act on humanitarian considerations, a lapse that has also fuelled public speculations that the prisoner’s affiliation with the fallen Awami League regime influenced the decision.
Parole decisions are made following a policy that came into effect in June 2016, which states that any prisoners, under-trial or otherwise, may be granted parole for a specified period in the event of the death of a close relative. Although this policy falls within the domain of administrative discretion, it cannot be rejected arbitrarily, capriciously or without providing reasons. In this instance, despite an application submitted by the family, the failure to apply the provision appears to be contrary to the purpose of the law and inconsistent with the principles of due administrative process. Amidst public criticism on social media, the deputy commissioner of Jashore issued a statement on January 25, saying they received no application from the family. Meanwhile, the jail authorities have said that parole decisions are not in their jurisdiction. In this ploy of shifting blame and responsibility, what becomes evident are bureaucratic indifference and selective commitment to protect prisoner’s rights. The indifference of neither the jail authorities nor the district administration, however, comes as a surprise because the number of deaths in jail custody has been on the rise and there are allegations that people affiliated to the fallen regime are particularly subjected to discrimination and harassment in accessing their entitled rights.
The reform of the legal system, which also includes the reform of the prison system, must consider the violation of prisoner’s rights, as evidenced in this case, and ensure that no parole decisions are made arbitrarily. The commitment to human rights must be universal, not selective.
