As per case facts... Anil Kumar, a convict in Haryana, filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging a High-Powered Committee decision from May 9, 2021. This decision stated that ... the period spent on interim/special parole, granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic based on the Supreme Court's Suo-Moto W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 directions, would not be counted towards his total sentence. He argued this decision was detrimental to his right to claim remission and that other states count such parole periods. The State of Haryana opposed, citing Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which explicitly states temporary release on parole shall not count towards the sentence. The question arose... The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the period a convict/prisoner is released on temporary/emergency parole, pursuant to the High-Powered Committee's decision based on the Supreme Court's orders, should be counted towards the total period of the convict's sentence. Finally... The Supreme Court ruled that the parole period should not be counted towards the total sentence. It upheld Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which was previously found constitutionally valid in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana. The Court referenced Mohinder Singh and Rohan Dhungat, reaffirming that for "actual imprisonment" calculations, parole periods must be excluded to prevent manipulation by influential prisoners and maintain the purpose of actual imprisonment. Therefore, the petitioner, convicted for serious offenses and serving life imprisonment, was not entitled to the relief sought, and his Writ Petition was dismissed.