Parole/leaves and furlough
There was a huge uproar in the media when Dera Sacha
Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, a convict serving a 20-years prison sentence for raping
two disciples, was seen organising an online 'satsang' while on a 40-day parole in October. On the other hand, S. Nalini, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, who was serving life imprisonment, was given several extensions of parole from December 2021 until her release.
Parole means the release of a prisoner either temporarily
for a special purpose or completely before the expiry of
a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour. Parole is the privilege given to the prisoners to return to the society and socialise with families and friends. It requires periodic reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It is granted to that person who has already served a portion of his or her sentence.
Furlough is given in cases of long-term imprisonment. A prisoner’s sentence is considered to be remitted during his furlough time. It is to be allowed on a regular basis for no reason other than to allow the prisoner to maintain familial and
social relationships and to counteract the negative consequences of long-term imprisonment. The right to be released on furlough is a substantial and legal right of the prisoner, and it cannot be rejected if
permitted by law.
The Prisons Act, 1894, and the Prisoners Act, 1900, did not contain any specific provision pertaining to parole
and/or furlough. However, Section 59 of the Prisons Act empowers States to make rules inter alia “for the shortening of
sentences” and “for rewards for good conduct”. Since “prisons, reformatories…” fall in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, States are
well within their reach to legislate on issues related to prisons. Each State has a different set of rules governing the period, eligibility criteria for parole and furlough. Without any common legal framework in place to guide the States and check misuse, arbitrariness is likely to
creep in, endangering the entire criminal justice system.
In the case of Babulal Das v. the State of West Bengal (1975), Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court
observed about the need for parole as follows: “It is fair that persons kept incarcerated and embittered without
trial should be given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable recourse to parole power under Section
15 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971.”
In the case of Kesar Singh Guleria v. the State of Himachal Pradesh (1984), the High Court held that the
act of releasing a prisoner on parole or furlough should not be viewed as an act of charity, compassion, or
clemency, but rather as an act in the discharge of a legal duty.