Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharad Devaram Shelake, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and kidnapping, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a Notification dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra, which amended Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 by adding sub-rules 11 to 19. The petitioner specifically challenged sub-rule 13, which provided that prisoners convicted for offences such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling, etc., shall not be considered for release on furlough. The petitioner contended that he did not apply for furlough because in view of this sub-rule, his application would be rejected. The State of Maharashtra opposed the petition, arguing that the rule was valid and that furlough is a privilege, not a right. The court examined the nature of furlough, noting that it is a right of a prisoner subject to good conduct, and that the State Government's rule-making power under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 does not extend to taking away such a right. The court held that sub-rule 13 is ultra vires the Prisons Act and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an arbitrary classification without any intelligible differentia. The court struck down sub-rule 13 and directed that the petitioner be considered for furlough in accordance with law. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, subject to good conduct and other conditions - The court held that furlough is granted to maintain family and social ties and to prevent criminal tendencies - The denial of furlough must be based on reasonable classification (Paras 5-10). B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Ultra Vires - Sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the State Government has no power under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 to make rules which take away the right of furlough for a particular category of prisoners - The rule is ultra vires the Act (Paras 11-15). C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Furlough Rules - The classification of prisoners convicted for kidnapping as a category for blanket denial of furlough is not based on any intelligible differentia and has no rational nexus with the object of the rules - The rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Paras 16-20). D) Prisons Law - Furlough - Kidnapping - The court struck down sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, as ultra vires and unconstitutional - The petitioner, convicted under Section 364 IPC for kidnapping, was held entitled to apply for furlough in accordance with law (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which excludes prisoners convicted for kidnapping from being considered for furlough, is ultra vires the Prisons Act, 1894 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, struck down sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as ultra vires and unconstitutional, and directed that the petitioner be considered for furlough in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- subject to good conduct
- classification of prisoners for denial of furlough must be reasonable and based on intelligible differentia
- blanket exclusion of all kidnapping convicts from furlough is arbitrary and violates Article 14
- sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules is ultra vires the Prisons Act
- 1894 and the Constitution.
