JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) to direct the respondents to make the necessary amendment in Rule 10B(2) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020 as also Rule 2(ii) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2021 by including category of prisoner like petitioner who are on emergent parole extending the period of parole till 30th June, 2021 and thereby amend the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958; (ii) to direct the respondents to release and allow the petitioner Nilam Kumar S/o Shri Ramjilal on special parole till 30th June, 2021 upon like conditions as enumerated in the order dated 17.5.2021 (Annexure-10) while allowing other prisoners on special parole till 30th June, 2021; (iii) to call for the record pertains to the present matter; (iv) to pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances, in favour of the petitioner." 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.38/2018 vide judgement dated 13.07.2020 for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Udaipur and has served more than six years of imprisonment without remission. 3. Vide order dated 25.5.2021, the District Magistrate, Jhalawar granted the petitioner emergent parole for a period of 15 days under Rule 10A of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 on account of his father suffering from Covid-19. Vide application dated 4.6.2021, the petitioner applied for extension of emergent parole before the Inspector General of Prisons, Rajasthan and District Magistrate, Jhalawar; but, with no response. Vide application dated 4.6.2021, the petitioner applied for extension of emergent parole before the Inspector General of Prisons, Rajasthan and District Magistrate, Jhalawar; but, with no response. The State Government vide Notification dated 10.4.2020 inserted Rule 10B in the Rules of 1958 which reads as under: "10-B. Special Parole in the wake of COVID-19 Pandemic.-(1) Not withstanding anything contained in rules 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 10A, in the wake of emergent situations of ongoing COVID-19 PANDEMIC which warrants immediate easing of population of prisoners in the prison, the State Government in order to secure the interest of prisoners, on the recommendation of the Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee, may grant Special Parole, for a period not exceeding four weeks, to a prisoner who has already availed first, second or third Parole peacefully and his behavior has been good during the period of such parole. The Special Parole under this rule shall be granted on such terms and conditions as may be considered necessary by the State Government: Provided that special parole under this rule shall not be granted to the prisoner who has been convicted for the offence related to Acid Attack, Rape, Dacoity, Murder, section 4 or 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Economic Offences, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Anti National Activities, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or any other offence of similar nature or the cases investigated by any central investigating Agencies. (2) The prisoners who are already availing first, second or third parole or the parole of 40 days granted every year, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of these rules i.e. the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020, the period of such parole shall be deemed to be extended upto 03rd May 2020." 4. The State Government vide Notification dated 17.5.2021 amended Rule 10B of the Rules of 1958 which reads as under: "2. The State Government vide Notification dated 17.5.2021 amended Rule 10B of the Rules of 1958 which reads as under: "2. Amendment of rule 10-B.- In rule 10-B of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958,- (i) in sub-rule (1) for the existing expression "not exceeding four weeks, to a prisoner who", the expression "not exceeding 90 days, to a prisoner who" shall be substituted; and (ii) in sub-rule (2), for the existing expression "Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020, the period of such parole shall be deemed to be extended upto 03rd May 2020", the expression "Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2021, the period of such parole shall be deemed to be extended upto 30th June, 2021" shall be substituted." 5. Pressing the relief claimed in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules of 1958 are discriminatory as benefit of special parole/extension of parole has been confined to the prisoners on regular parole only excluding the prisoners on emergent parole which has no rationale behind it as the sole purpose of grant of special parole/extension of parole is de-congestion of jail. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to amend the Rules suitably so as to extend a similar treatment to the prisoners on emergent parole. He prayed that the emergent parole of the petitioner be extended till 30.06.2021 in terms of the Notification dated 17.05.2021. 6. Learned State counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. To appreciate the submissions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and to adjudicate upon whether Rule 10B is a discriminatory piece of legislation, we propose to examine the statutory scheme for grant of parole/emergent parole under the Rules of 1958 which has been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-section 6 of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (now Section 432(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 9. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 provides as under:- "9. 9. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 provides as under:- "9. Parole period- A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one-fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned: the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence: Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above." 10. Thus, grant of parole under Rule 9 is subject to certain conditions as enumerated therein such as: (i) completion with remission, if any, one fourth of the sentence, (ii) good conduct in jail, (iii) for subsequent parole, good behaviour during the earlier parole(s). 11. Thus, grant of parole under Rule 9 is subject to certain conditions as enumerated therein such as: (i) completion with remission, if any, one fourth of the sentence, (ii) good conduct in jail, (iii) for subsequent parole, good behaviour during the earlier parole(s). 11. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958 provides that no second and subsequent release on parole shall be made unless eleven months have elapsed from the date of expiry of period of release on parole immediately preceding. Rule 12 lays down that the period for which a prisoner stays on parole under Rule 9, without violating the conditions laid down for the purpose, shall be treated as imprisonment served by him. All other kinds of parole shall be treated as sentence suspended. 12. Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958 provides for provisions for grant of emergent parole, which reads as under: "[10A. (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule [3, 4, 5], 9 and 10, in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz. (1) critical condition on account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or unmarried sister; (2) death of any such close relation; and (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity. (4) marriage of a prisoner, his/her son or daughter of his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her parents are not alive.] A Prisoner [xxx] [may] be released on parole for a period not exceeding 7 days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons [District Magistrate] on such terms and conditions as they may, consider necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a guarantee for his return to the jail, acceptance or execution whereof would be a condition precedent to the release of such a prisoner on parole. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed.] [In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly.]" 13. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed.] [In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly.]" 13. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 10A reveals that grant of emergent parole is not qualified by any of such conditions which are pre-requisite for grant of parole under Rule 9 such as completion of one fourth of sentence including remission or good conduct in jail or interval of eleven months in between two paroles as laid down under Rule 10. Further, a prisoner on emergent parole is not entitled to benefit available to a prisoner on parole under Rule 9 by virtue of Rule 12. 14. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 lays down as under: "14. Ineligibility for release. - The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole:- (a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State; (b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; (c) Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police custody or attempted to escape; (d) Persons who have been convicted for offences under sections 121 to 140, 216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; unless they have undergone [one-fourth] of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s. 302 I.P.C., the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole." 15. A prisoner claiming emergent parole under Rule 10A may not suffer from any ineligibility as prescribed under Rule 14. A prisoner claiming emergent parole under Rule 10A may not suffer from any ineligibility as prescribed under Rule 14. A division bench of this Court has in the case of Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1990) 2 RajLR 598 held as under: "8. We find from a perusal of Rule 14 that classes of prisoners referred to in that rule will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole unless they have undergone 1/4th of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. Rule 10A deals with special situations. The term 'ordinarily' used in Rule 16 (sic 14) has to be construed in harmony with the provisions contained in Rule 10A relating to emergency cases. There is every justification for saying that ordinarily the persons who are convicted for offences specified in Rule 14 may not be given the benefit of parole without fulfillment of the condition of having undergone 1/4th of the sentence including remission. However, the term 'ordinarily' if construed in contradistinction to extraordinary situation, it is clear that there is no conflict between Rule 10A and Rule 14. Rule 10A deals with emergent cases involving humanitarian considerations. This carves out an exception to other rules. Therefore, by reading two provisions together, we come to the conclusion that in emergent cases involving humanitarian considerations, also there is no bar for release of a prisoner before completion of 1/4th of sentence including remission. If these provisions are read harmoniously, we see no infirmity or voice of discrimination. Obviously, therefore, the argument of Shri Chaudhary that rule 14 violates article 14 of the Constitution deserves to be negatived. 9. We are of the considered opinion that if an application is made by a person who is a convict of the categories specified in Rule 14 of 1958 Rules and he satisfies the conditions specified in Rule 10A, he is entitled to be released on parole." 16. Thus, a perusal of the scheme of the Rules of 1958 makes it abundantly clear that the parameters for grant of parole under Rule 9 and grant of emergent parole under Rule 10A are quite distinct and operate in their independent arena; but, are based on sound logical reasoning. Thus, a perusal of the scheme of the Rules of 1958 makes it abundantly clear that the parameters for grant of parole under Rule 9 and grant of emergent parole under Rule 10A are quite distinct and operate in their independent arena; but, are based on sound logical reasoning. A prisoner can be granted emergent parole even if he has not acquired eligibility for grant of parole vide Rule 9 in view of ineligibility provided under Rule 10 or Rule 14. The length of sentence served by a prisoner as well as his jail conduct/conduct during earlier parole(s) are the relevant criteria for grant of regular parole, the conditions which may not necessarily be concomitant for grant of emergent parole. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the case of a prisoner released on parole under Rule 9 and a prisoner released on emergent parole under Rule 10A is not on similar footing and parity cannot be claimed by the petitioner on that basis under Rule 10B. 17. Further, the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020, In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons and minutes of the meeting of the High Powered Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha, Executive Chairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 13.5.2021 reflect that a conscious decision was taken to extend the parole period of the prisoners already availing special parole/regular parole in the wake of Covid-19. It may be pertinent to observe here that special parole in terms of newly inserted Rule 10B could be availed only by those prisoners who have already availed first, second or third parole peacefully and their behaviour has been good during the period of such parole. There has been no recommendation for grant of special parole/extension of parole period for the prisoners availing emergent parole and for good reason. As we have already discussed, the criteria for grant of regular parole and emergent parole operate in their own independent field. There has been no recommendation for grant of special parole/extension of parole period for the prisoners availing emergent parole and for good reason. As we have already discussed, the criteria for grant of regular parole and emergent parole operate in their own independent field. Further, Rule 10B itself carves out an exception to grant of special parole in its proviso wherein it has been laid down that the special parole shall not be granted to the prisoner who has been convicted for the offence related to Acid Attack, Rape, Dacoity, Murder, section 4 or 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Economic Offences, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Anti National Activities, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or any other offence of similar nature or the cases investigated by any central investigating Agencies; whereas there is no such bar for grant of emergent parole to a prisoner convicted for some of such offences. Therefore, a prisoner on emergent parole cannot claim parity with a prisoner on regular parole/special parole. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to Rule 10B being discriminatory, has no merit. 18. Undoubtedly, the object behind the insertion of Rule 10B is de-congestion in jail and to avoid spread of infection in the wake of Covid-19; however, if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for this very reason a prisoner on emergent parole is also entitled for the same benefit, is accepted, it may have far reaching and sweeping effect. Such a spacious plea can be adopted and applied for each and every new entry in the jail. Rule 10B has a salutary object behind it whereby a person on special parole/regular parole has been held entitled for special parole or extension of parole period. As already discussed, length of sentence served as well as jail conduct/conduct during earlier parole(s) is the relevant criteria for grant of special parole/regular parole, no such statutory requirement exists for grant of emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958. Even otherwise also, as already observed, proviso to Rule 10B itself lays down certain exceptions for the prisoners convicted under certain offences, who; otherwise, are entitled for grant of regular parole. Even otherwise also, as already observed, proviso to Rule 10B itself lays down certain exceptions for the prisoners convicted under certain offences, who; otherwise, are entitled for grant of regular parole. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, conscious of the aforesaid aspect, confined new entry of the inmates in the jail to the categories of the person as prescribed in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) AIR SC 2756 in the judgement passed by it in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020. Therefore, the contention deserves to be dismissed. 19. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner is seeking direction for the respondents to amend the Rule 10B. The jurisdiction of the Court to give any direction for amending the Act or the statutory Rule is very limited. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 294 , held as under: "19. At the outset, we would say that it is not possible for this Court to give any directions for amending the Act or the statutory Rules. It is for the Parliament to amend the Act and the Rules. It is also established law that no direction can be given, which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules. 20. However, it is equally settled that in case when the Act or Rules are silent on a particular subject and the Authority implementing the same has constitutional or statutory power to implement it, the Court can necessarily issue directions or orders on the said subject to fill the vacuum or void till the suitable law is enacted." 20. A Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of Priamvada vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2001 MANURH 1419 while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction for amendment in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955 on the strength of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All India Judges' Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288 , held as under: "16. We have carefully perused the above judgment. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288 , held as under: "16. We have carefully perused the above judgment. We are conscious of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was exercising powers under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India read with Art. 142 of the Constitution of India while issuing the said directions in order to do complete justice to the parties, but while exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court can enforce the law or declare the same ultra vires if the same is violative of fundamental rights or the authority concerned likes the competence to enact or make the same, but cannot issue mandamus or directions to the Legislative Authorities to amend the Law." 21. We find no such exigency obtaining in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to its authority to issue direction to the respondents to amend the Rule with which we otherwise do not find any fault. 22. In the result, the criminal writ petition (parole) is dismissed being devoid of merit.