Parole And Furlough Under Prison Laws
Definitions
Parole: A system of conditional release of a prisoner before the completion of their sentence, based on good behavior, allowing them to serve the remainder of the sentence outside prison under supervision.
Furlough: A temporary, short-term leave granted to a prisoner, usually for specific reasons like family emergencies or medical treatment, after which the prisoner must return to jail.
Legal Framework and Purpose
Parole and furlough aim to:
Encourage rehabilitation by reintegrating prisoners gradually.
Maintain social ties and responsibilities.
Provide temporary relief for prisoners under certain conditions.
Reduce prison overcrowding without compromising public safety.
Both are privileges, not rights, granted under prison laws or executive orders but must adhere to principles of fairness and justice.
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) (India)
Facts: The petitioner was denied parole due to procedural lapses.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that parole is a statutory privilege and should be granted reasonably unless there is sufficient cause for denial. The Court held that the process must be fair and not arbitrary.
Significance: Established that parole cannot be denied whimsically and procedural fairness is mandatory.
2. Union of India v. Ram Manohar Lohia (1960) (India)
Facts: The petitioner was granted furlough to attend a family emergency but was denied extension.
Held: The Supreme Court held that furlough is a privilege granted to a prisoner and must be exercised with discretion. However, unjustified denial of furlough can be challenged if it violates principles of natural justice.
Significance: Affirmed that while furlough is a discretionary act, the exercise of discretion must be fair and reasonable.
3. Raghunath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) (India)
Facts: The petitioner was denied parole despite good conduct.
Held: The Court held that parole should be considered as a measure to aid rehabilitation and cannot be withheld arbitrarily. Prison authorities must provide valid reasons for denial.
Significance: Reinforced the rehabilitative philosophy behind parole and procedural transparency.
4. Tarlok Singh v. Union of India (1985) (India)
Facts: This case concerned the guidelines for grant of parole and furlough, particularly for political prisoners.
Held: The Court ruled that the grant of parole/furlough must be consistent with prison laws and must not violate public interest or safety.
Significance: This case laid down that parole and furlough are subject to balancing individual rights and societal concerns.
5. Sharma v. State of Punjab (1981) (India)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the denial of furlough during a religious festival.
Held: The Court held that prisoners should be allowed furlough for religious and cultural reasons unless it poses a threat to security.
Significance: Affirmed the cultural and humanitarian considerations in granting furlough.
Key Features and Principles of Parole and Furlough
Discretionary Nature: Both are privileges granted at the discretion of the prison authorities or the executive.
Purpose: Primarily aimed at rehabilitation, maintaining family ties, and humane treatment.
Conditions: Usually conditional and may involve supervision or guarantees.
Not a Right: Since parole/furlough is a privilege, denial cannot be arbitrary but is not an absolute right.
Supervision: Parolees remain under surveillance and must comply with terms to avoid re-arrest.
Differences Between Parole and Furlough
| Aspect | Parole | Furlough |
|---|---|---|
| Duration | Longer-term conditional release | Short-term temporary leave |
| Purpose | Rehabilitation and reintegration | Emergency, family, or medical reasons |
| Supervision | Under strict supervision | Usually expected to return after leave |
| Legal Basis | Statutory provisions or executive orders | Executive discretion |
| Consequence of Violation | Re-arrest and resumption of sentence | May lead to disciplinary action |
Conclusion
Parole and furlough are vital instruments of prison reform focusing on humane treatment and rehabilitation. They bridge the gap between incarceration and freedom while ensuring public safety. The case laws emphasize the need for fairness, transparency, and reasonable exercise of discretion in granting these privileges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments