Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Namdeo Bhukan, was convicted under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2011, vide judgment dated 24.5.2013. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner applied for furlough, but withdrew his application because of a notification dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Home Department, which amended Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules by adding sub-rule (13). This sub-rule barred convicts under Section 364 IPC from being granted furlough. The petitioner challenged the validity of this notification by filing a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The core legal issue was whether the notification was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the classification of convicts under Section 364 IPC as ineligible for furlough was unreasonable and had no rational nexus with the object of the furlough scheme. The State, represented by the APP, defended the notification as a policy decision to prevent escape of convicts involved in kidnapping. The Court analyzed the purpose of furlough, which is to enable prisoners to maintain family and social ties and to incentivize good conduct. The Court held that furlough is a right, not a privilege, and any restriction must be reasonable. The Court found that Section 364 IPC (kidnapping) is not inherently more heinous than other offences, and the blanket exclusion without considering individual circumstances was arbitrary. The Court declared sub-rule (13) of Rule 4 as ultra vires the Prisons Act and violative of Article 14. The petition was allowed, and the notification was quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner's furlough application be considered afresh without reference to the struck-down rule.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Eligibility - Rule 4(13) of Furlough and Parole Rules - The notification dated 23.02.2012 added sub-rule (13) to Rule 4, barring convicts under Section 364 IPC from furlough. The Court held that the classification is arbitrary and not based on any intelligible differentia, as Section 364 IPC (kidnapping) is not a heinous offence per se and the rule fails to consider the circumstances of each case. The rule was struck down as ultra vires the Prisons Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 2-10) B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right vs. Privilege - The Court reiterated that furlough is a right of a prisoner, subject to good conduct, and not a privilege that can be arbitrarily curtailed. The amendment creating a blanket exclusion for Section 364 convicts was held to be unreasonable and disproportionate. (Paras 5-8) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - The Court applied the test of reasonable classification and found that the classification of convicts under Section 364 IPC as a separate class for denial of furlough lacks nexus with the object of the rule, which is to ensure good conduct and prevent escape. The rule was declared void. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 23.02.2012 amending Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules by adding sub-rule (13) which excludes convicts under Section 364 IPC from furlough is valid and constitutional.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The notification dated 23.02.2012 adding sub-rule (13) to Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules is quashed and set aside as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's furlough application shall be considered afresh without reference to the struck-down rule.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- Classification for furlough eligibility must be reasonable and based on intelligible differentia
- Rule 4(13) of Furlough and Parole Rules is ultra vires the Prisons Act and the Constitution
- Section 364 IPC cannot be a blanket bar for furlough
