Convicts in Maharashtra can now avail multiple paroles in 1 year

A bench of justices PN Deshmukh, Manish Pitale and Pushpa Ganediwala struck down the proviso to Rule 19(2) of the Furlough and Parole Rules, terming it “manifestly arbitrary.”

Convicts lodged across jails across Maharashtra can now avail multiple paroles within a year. Holding that parole is a limited legal right available to a prisoner, the Bombay high court last week struck down a clause in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which prohibited multiple paroles within a year, except in case of the death of a nearest relative – father, mother, spouse or child.

Kantilal Jaiswal, a prisoner in Nagpur Central Jail, had challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso after his parole application was rejected by prison authorities merely on the ground that it was filed within a year of his earlier leave. (HT FILE)

A bench of justices PN Deshmukh, Manish Pitale and Pushpa Ganediwala struck down the proviso to Rule 19(2) of the Furlough and Parole Rules, terming it “manifestly arbitrary.” The proviso stated that a prisoner shall not be released on emergency or regular parole for one year after the expiry of his last parole, except in case of death of his nearest relative. The restriction appeared to be “highly insensitive and cruel” to the bench. “Just because the period of one year is to expire, a prisoner will not be able to see his/her close relatives during serious illness, even facing death, and also when a natural calamity occurs, but he would have to wait for death to occur for grant of parole.”

Kantilal Jaiswal, a prisoner in Nagpur Central Jail, had challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso after his parole application was rejected by prison authorities merely on the ground that it was filed within a year of his earlier leave. The 68-year-old murder convict contended that the proviso was completely arbitrary and violated his constitutional rights. Acting on his plea, a reference was made to the larger bench, which upheld his plea. It held that though grant of parole was governed by policy of the state, it was a limited legal right available to a prisoner and not a concession, which can be allowed or rejected at the whims or fancies of the authorities.

As regards to the proviso, it said if the objectives behind the granting of parole were to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with family life and to develop active interest in life, it was difficult to understand why the prisoner in a genuine case cannot be released when his father or mother or spouse or son or daughter is suffering from a serious illness or when a natural calamity such as flood, fire or earthquake occurs.

Apart from finding that the restriction placed on grant of parole by the proviso was contrary to some clauses contained in the Furlough and Parole Rules, the judges also noticed periodic disappearance of the clause for the rule book. They said the state was not clear about its own policy, as the proviso was in force between November 1989 and February 2007, but was deleted for the next five years, till February 2012, when it was re-introduced. It remained on the rule book till August 2016 and again disappeared till April 2018, when it was again brought back to the rule book.

“Such repeated somersaults in the state policy show the arbitrary manner in which the state has been treating prisoners and convicts in Maharashtra,” the bench said in this regard.