The Bombay High Court recently challenged a regulation that prohibits the release of prisoners on parole until they have served a minimum of one and a half years in prison. The only exception to this rule for early release on emergency parole is in the case of the death of a close relative.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed that natural disasters, family illnesses, and a pregnant wife’s delivery are also unforeseen circumstances that may justify a prisoner's early release on parole, even before completing the mandatory one-and-a-half-year period. The Court emphasized that requiring a prisoner to wait this long for parole in such situations is unreasonable, labeling the restrictions as “manifestly arbitrary.”
This ruling came while considering a plea from Balaji Puyad, who sought parole in September 2024 due to his wife's critical illness. His request was denied by the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison, who cited a rule that disqualified him from parole until he had served at least one and a half years following his last furlough in April 2024.
The prison authorities clarified that a prisoner is only eligible for parole after spending a minimum of one and a half years in custody, either from their initial admission or since their last release. However, the Court instructed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Nashik, to reassess this decision, pointing out that while the death of a close relative is recognized as an emergency for parole, other unexpected situations, such as severe family illness, a pregnant wife's delivery, or natural calamities, should also be considered valid grounds for earlier release.
"Though, the cause like death, is now categorised into emergency parole, still the contingency like serious illness of father/mother/spouse/son/daughter; delivery of wife; natural calamities such as house collapse, flood, fire, earthquake definitely is an unforeseen contingency and one cannot speculate as to when such contingency will occur and, definitely, in such a case, the prisoner shall not be asked to wait for one and half year of actual imprisonment, to be undergone by him, when he seek parole leave on any of these contingencies, set out for availing regular parole," the Court observed in its October 25 ruling.
The State informed the Court that prisoners could be granted regular parole for serious family illnesses, a wife's delivery, or natural disasters. However, it clarified that a 2022 amendment to the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, prohibited such considerations unless the prisoner had completed one and a half years of actual imprisonment from their admission date.
The Court noted that a similar provision in the 2018 Rules had been evaluated by the Full Bench, which determined that it is unreasonable to expect any individual to predict the timing of unforeseen events like serious illness or natural disasters when seeking parole.
“We are really surprised to note that despite exposition of law to the aforesaid effect, an identical provision has found its way in the Furlough Rules,” the Court lamented.
The Court expressed its inclination to invalidate this provision but noted that, due to the absence of a direct challenge to it, its review would be limited to the case at hand. Consequently, the Court directed the prison authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application based on its merits within a week, explicitly instructing them not to apply the restriction that prevents parole until the prisoner has served one and a half years in custody.
Advocates Rupesh Jaiswal and Anjali Raut appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor Mankuwar Deshmukh represented the State.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy