Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dealt with two criminal writ petitions filed by convicted prisoners challenging the rejection of their furlough applications. The petitioners, Ravasaheb Damu Ghule and Nilesh Hiru Gavit, had applied for furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The Competent Authority offered to grant furlough on condition that they stay outside their respective home districts—Nashik in one case and Palghar in the other. The petitioners declined to accept this restriction, leading to the rejection of their furlough applications on the ground that they did not comply with the condition. The orders of rejection were dated 6 July 2018 and 23 July 2018 respectively. The legal issue before the High Court was whether such a condition could be validly imposed under the 1959 Rules and whether the rejection was justified. The State argued that Rule 17 precludes any legal right to furlough and that the Rules do not prohibit the imposition of such a condition. However, the court disagreed, relying on established precedents. It held that the right to furlough is a substantial and legal right, not a mere discretionary benefit, once the prisoner meets the criteria under Rules 3, 4 and 6. Rule 17 cannot be used to nullify this right. The court emphasized that the object of furlough is to humanize the penal system, maintain family ties, and enable the prisoner to avoid the ill-effects of continuous incarceration. The condition to stay away from the home district completely frustrates this object. Referring to the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhikhabhai Devshi and the statement of objects and reasons behind the Prisons Act amendment, the court reiterated that well-behaved prisoners should have a spell of freedom as a matter of right. Consequently, the court found the impugned orders illegal and allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the rejections and directing the Competent Authorities to decide the furlough applications afresh on merits without imposing the objectionable condition. The judgment restores the primacy of the reformative object underlying furlough provisions.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Furlough - Right to Furlough - Substantive Right - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 6, Rule 17 - The right to be released on furlough is a substantial and legal right accruing to a prisoner upon compliance with the rules; Rule 17 does not abrogate this right - Held that a prisoner is entitled to be released on furlough if he satisfies the requirements under Rules 3, 4 and 6, and furlough cannot be denied on extraneous grounds not specified in the Rules. (Paras 3-4, 8) B) Prisons and Furlough - Object of Furlough - Family Association and Reformation - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The primary object of granting furlough is to enable the prisoner to maintain contact with family and avoid ill-effects of continuous prison life - A condition requiring the prisoner to stay outside the district where his family resides completely defeats this object and is therefore illegal - Authorities directed to reconsider applications on merits without imposing such condition; impugned orders set aside. Held that such condition is impermissible and frustrates the reformative purpose of furlough. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Competent Authority, requiring the prisoners to stay outside their home districts while on furlough, is valid under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and whether the refusal of furlough on that ground is legal.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 6 July 2018 and 23 July 2018 are quashed and set aside. The Competent Authorities are directed to decide the applications for furlough on merits without imposing the condition that the prisoners shall not enter the respective Districts where their families reside.
Law Points
- furlough is a substantive right if conditions met
- Rule 17 does not negate right to furlough
- object of furlough is family continuity and reformation
- conditions cannot frustrate purpose of furlough
- furlough cannot be denied on extraneous grounds
