Prisoners entitled to full annual furlough leave if it spills over into next year due to delay: HC

The Bombay High Court ruled prisoners are entitled to 28 days of furlough leave annually, regardless of delays, and directed authorities to grant owed leave.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently clarified that prisoners are entitled to full furlough leave of 28 days every calendar year, even if part of their leave spills over into the following year due to delays on the part of the jail administration.

Prisoners entitled to full annual furlough leave if it spills over into next year due to delay: HC

The court, while deciding a petition filed by a convict serving life imprisonment, ruled that furlough leave is to be decided strictly according to the calendar year and cannot be curtailed due to spillover from the previous year caused by delays in procedure. Prison authorities are expected to decide on furlough leave applications within the prescribed timeline of 45 days, the court said.

The petitioner, Steve, also known as Lisban John Miranda, is serving a life sentence at Yerawada Central Jail in Pune. He filed a petition on the basis of his entitlement to avail 28 days of furlough leave in a calendar year as per the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, which prescribes a 28-day furlough period after five years of imprisonment.

However, the authorities restricted his leave for the year 2024 to only 11 days, stating that his furlough leaves sanctioned in 2023 had spilled over into 2024 by 17 days, leaving him an entitled balance of only 11 days for the year.

According to the petition, in 2022, Miranda had applied for furlough leave on September 29, which was approved only on December 12. Similarly, in 2023, he applied for furlough leave on June 12, but was released only on December 21.

Consequently, the crucial period of the current leave in question happened to fall in the calendar year 2024, resulting in the authorities establishing only 11 days of the balance leave period for Miranda.

The petitioner’s lawyer, advocate NN Gawankar, submitted that the prison authorities must adhere to the prescribed timeline of 45 days to decide on furlough leave applications. On the other hand, additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh attempted to justify the decision by submitting that the petitioner had already availed 17 days of furlough in the calendar year.

A division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande rejected the authorities’ contentions, noting that the delay in processing furlough leave pleas was solely their fault. The bench criticised the prison authorities for delaying the procedure by three to four months and failing to adhere to the prescribed timelines established by the circular issued by the state home department in 2007, which mandates jail authorities to respond to applications for furlough leaves in 45 days.

Furthermore, the court clarified that furlough leaves must be in effect to the year it was applied for, even if the actual release is delayed. The court directed the jail authorities to grant the petitioner the balance leave of 17 days for the year 2024.