Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that jail authorities cannot deny furlough or parole to a convict solely based on their youth and marital status. The court directed the Special Inspector General of Prisons to reconsider Prahlad Gupta’s application for furlough. The decision challenges the notion that young, unmarried individuals are more likely to flee, emphasizing that such assumptions should not determine parole eligibility.

• Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi held this in the case of Prahlad Feku Gupta v. State of Maharashtra.

What was the Background of Prahlad Feku Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Case?

• The petitioner, Prahlad Gupta, is serving life imprisonment for offenses including murder, house trespass, and destruction of evidence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• After serving approximately 4 years and 5 months of his sentence, Gupta applied for 28 days of furlough leave on 8^th May, 2023.
• The Special Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur denied the furlough application on 11^th September, 2023.
• The denial was primarily based on a negative report from the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj District, Uttar Pradesh.
• The report cited concerns about Gupta's age (26 years) and unmarried status as factors indicating a risk of absconding.
• Gupta filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
• The petition challenged the order of the Special Inspector General of Prison denying furlough.
• Gupta sought to quash the impugned order and requested the court to direct the authorities to grant him furlough leave.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, ruled that a convict's unmarried status and young age alone are insufficient grounds for denying furlough, emphasizing that prison authorities must independently assess furlough applications beyond police reports.
• The Court stressed the importance of furlough in maintaining family connections and aiding rehabilitation, noting that prolonged incarceration without family contact is detrimental to both the inmate and society.
• The Bench quashed the Special Inspector General of Prison's order denying furlough and directed a fresh consideration of the application, stating that the risk of absconding can be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
• The judgment affirmed furlough as a legal right of convicts (subject to statutory conditions) and ordered the granting of furlough within three weeks, underlining the need for authorities to exercise judicious discretion in such decisions.
• These ruling highlights the balance between public safety and the rehabilitative goals of the correctional system, advocating for a more nuanced approach to furlough decisions.

What is Furlough?

• A furlough is a temporary release of a prisoner from custody, granted for specific purposes such as maintaining family ties or addressing urgent personal matters.
• It is generally considered a matter of right for eligible prisoners, subject to certain conditions and regulations, unlike parole which is more discretionary.
• The primary purpose of furlough is to enable prisoners to maintain social connections and family relationships, aiding in their eventual rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
• Eligibility for furlough usually requires that the prisoner has served a minimum portion of their sentence and maintained good behavior, though specific criteria may vary by jurisdiction.
• Furlough is granted under specific conditions, which may include reporting to local police stations, restrictions on movement, and the requirement to return to prison at the specified time.

What are the Legal Provisions Relating to Furlough?

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
  • Section 473: Power to suspend or remit sentences.
  • The appropriate Government has the power to suspend or remit sentences, with or without conditions, at any time after a person has been sentenced for an offense.
  • When considering applications for suspension or remission, the Government may seek the opinion of the presiding Judge who convicted or confirmed the conviction, along with reasons and relevant trial records.
  • The Government can cancel a suspension or remission if conditions are not met, leading to potential rearrest of the person to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence.
  • Petitions for suspension or remission (except for fines) for persons over 18 must be made while the person is in jail, either through the officer in charge or with a declaration of imprisonment if made by another person.
  • These provisions apply to all orders restricting liberty or imposing liability, with the "appropriate Government" being either the Central Government for Union matters or the State Government for other cases.
• Prisons Act 1894:
  • Furlough and Parole Rules, made pursuant to Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894.
  • The grant of furlough is regulated primarily by Rule 3 and Rule 4 of prison rules.
  • Rule 3 outlines the eligibility criteria for prisoners to be granted furlough, based on the length of their imprisonment.
  • Rule 4 imposes limitations on the grant of furlough.
  • The language "may be released" in Rule 3 indicates that furlough is not an absolute right of prisoners.
  • Rule 17 explicitly states that these rules do not confer a legal right on prisoners to claim release on furlough.
  • The grant of furlough is a discretionary remedy, subject to the conditions outlined in Rules 3 and 4.
  • The Supreme Court has clarified that furlough is not a legal right of prisoners.

What is Parole?

• It is a system of releasing a prisoner with suspension of the sentence.
  • The release is conditional, usually subject to behavior, and requires periodic reporting to the authorities for a set period of time.
• Parole is not a right, and is given to a prisoner for a specific reason, such as a death in the family or a wedding of a blood relative
• It may be denied to a prisoner even when he makes out a sufficient case, if the competent authority is satisfied that releasing the convict would not be in the interest of society.

Difference Between Parole and Furlough?

Nature of Release:

Parole and furlough are both forms of temporary conditional release from confinement. However, parole is granted for specific purposes, whereas furlough is a periodic release without necessarily requiring a particular reason. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Purpose:

The purpose of parole is to address specific exigencies or reasons, while furlough aims to maintain the prisoner's family and social ties and mitigate the adverse effects of prolonged incarceration. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006; Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Eligibility:

Furlough eligibility is determined by the completion of a minimum stipulated sentence as per Rule 3, whereas parole may be granted based on the merits of the specific cause shown. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Reason Requirement:

For granting parole, reasons must be explicitly stated as per Rule 19. In contrast, furlough does not necessitate the provision of specific reasons. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Discretionary Nature:

Release on furlough is not an absolute right of the prisoner and is subject to conditions outlined in Rules 4(4) and 6. It may be denied in the interest of society. Parole, however, is to be granted only upon sufficient cause being demonstrated. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Sentence Computation:

The period spent on furlough is treated as time served in prison and counts towards the total sentence. Conversely, the period of parole is not counted as remission of sentence. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006 State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh,2000)

Duration and Frequency:

Parole may extend up to one month, while furlough is limited to a maximum of fourteen days. Parole can be granted multiple times, whereas furlough is subject to limitations. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Granting Authority:

Parole is granted by the Divisional Commissioner, while furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Applicability to Sentence Length:

Parole may be considered in cases of short-term imprisonment, whereas furlough is typically granted for long-term imprisonment. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Legal Characterization:

Parole can be characterized as a form of conditional pardon or suspension of sentence, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Furlough, in contrast, is granted as a good conduct remission. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)