Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: Indian Express

Context:

The Delhi High Court is reviewing the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, which mandate courts to grant furloughs pending appeals, unlike other states where the executive holds this power. 

About Furlough

Furlough is a temporary release from prison granted to convicts who have served a portion of their sentence. It is intended to:

• Break the monotony of imprisonment.
• Help prisoners maintain family and social ties.
• Motivate good behavior and discipline in prison.

Unlike parole, furlough is not granted for specific reasons like illness or emergencies. It is a right granted to prisoners after they have served a certain period of their sentence, subject to good conduct.

During furlough, the sentence continues to run. For example, if a prisoner is released on furlough for 30 days, those 30 days are still counted as part of the sentence.

What is Parole?

Parole is a conditional release granted for specific reasons, such as:

• Medical emergencies.
• Family emergencies (e.g., death or serious illness of a family member).
• Sowing or harvesting crops.
• Pursuing legal appeals.

Unlike furlough, parole suspends the sentence for the period of release. The total sentence remains unchanged.

Parole is granted by the Divisional Commissioner, while furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.

Why is the Delhi Rule Different?

Under the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, Rule 1224 states that if a convict’s appeal is pending before the High Court or the time for filing an appeal has not expired, furlough cannot be granted by the executive. Instead, the convict must seek directions from the court where the appeal is pending.

This rule is unique because, in most states, the power to grant furlough lies with the executive (prison authorities), not the judiciary.

The rule has been challenged in the Delhi High Court on the grounds that it violates:

• Article 14 (right to equality).
• Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

Why is the Delhi High Court Hearing the Case?

Constitutional Validity:

• The court is examining whether the rule violates the right to equality and right to life and liberty under the Constitution.
• The court is also testing whether denying furlough to convicts with pending appeals, despite good conduct, contradicts the reformative approach of the justice system.

Jurisdictional Issue:

• The court is determining whether convicts with appeals pending in the Supreme Court must approach the SC for furlough or if the High Court can grant relief.

Reformative Justice:

• The court is considering whether the denial of furlough during the pendency of an appeal undermines the reformative purpose of imprisonment.

Historical Context: Suspension of Sentence

The issue of who can grant suspension of sentence dates back to the KM Nanavati case (1960).

• In this case, the Governor of Maharashtra suspended Nanavati’s sentence while his appeal was pending in the Supreme Court.
• The SC ruled that the Governor (under Article 161) cannot suspend a sentence when the matter is sub judice before the court, as it would interfere with the judiciary’s appellate powers.

This precedent highlights the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary in matters of sentence suspension.

Is Denial of Furlough Common During Pending Appeals?

• In several states, furlough and parole are denied to convicts with pending appeals.
• The rationale is that such convicts can seek relief from the court where their appeal is pending.
• The Supreme Court has taken note of this issue and added eight states (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Madhya Pradesh) as parties to a pending case to address inconsistencies in parole and furlough policies.

Must Read Articles: 

PAROLE

Source: 

INDIAN EXPRESS