Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions, filed by convicts in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 19 of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, as amended in 2012. The petitioners, including Gajanan Babulal Bathulwar and others, Umashankar Shriram Potbhare, Chandrashekhar Suresh Bhoyar, and Mahesh Janardan Gonnade and others, sought release on parole for various reasons such as serious illness of family members or other sufficient causes but were either denied or apprehended denial due to the new restriction. The impugned proviso prohibited release on parole within one year from the expiry of the last parole, except in case of the death of a nearest relative (father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, children). The petitioners argued that this restriction unreasonably deprived them of the opportunity to avail parole during emergencies like serious illness of a family member, marriage of a sibling or child, or natural calamities, thereby violating their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the same court in Namdeo Tarfe v. State of Maharashtra (2008(4) Mh.L.J. 341). The State, through the Superintendent of Prisons, defended the rule, contending that the amendment was a reasonable measure to curb widespread misuse and abuse of parole leave by convicts, including serious offenders. It asserted that the rule was within the State’s power under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, and did not offend Article 21 since parole is a concession and not an absolute right. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Sunil Fulchand Shaha v. Union of India (2000(3) SCC 409) and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh ((2000) 3 SCC 394). The court considered the statutory framework and the legal position on parole, noting that the concept had been examined by the Constitution Bench in Sunil Fulchand Shaha, where it was held that parole is a temporary release for a special purpose. The judgment, reserved on 27-01-2014 and pronounced on 07-03-2014, dealt with the core issue whether the restriction was reasonable and within rule-making power. The extract provided does not include the court’s final analysis and decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proviso to Rule 19 of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India by imposing an unreasonable restriction on the grant of parole
Law Points
- parole is a concession
- not a right
- restrictions on parole must be reasonable and not violate Article 21
- the state has power under Section 59 Prisons Act
- 1894 to frame rules
- the proviso restricts parole to once a year except for death of nearest relative
- the amendment was made to prevent misuse
