Parole And Furlough Distinction
1. What is Parole?
Parole is a conditional release of a prisoner for a limited period, granted by competent authorities, allowing the prisoner to be outside jail but still under legal custody.
It is typically granted for urgent personal reasons such as illness of family members, attending funerals, or other compassionate grounds.
Parole is considered a liberty granted temporarily without terminating the sentence or fully releasing the prisoner.
The prisoner must return to custody on expiry of parole period.
Parole aims at reintegration and rehabilitation of prisoners.
2. What is Furlough?
Furlough is a temporary leave of absence from prison granted to convicts or under-trials for a fixed period, usually to maintain family relations, attend festivals, or for personal convenience.
Unlike parole, furlough is generally granted on routine grounds like festivals or special occasions.
It is often shorter in duration than parole.
The prisoner must also return to custody after furlough ends.
Furlough acts as a morale booster and helps maintain family ties.
3. Key Distinctions Between Parole and Furlough
| Aspect | Parole | Furlough |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Compassionate, urgent personal reasons | Routine leave on festivals, family visits |
| Duration | Generally longer (weeks to months) | Usually shorter (days to weeks) |
| Nature | Conditional release with stricter scrutiny | Temporary leave with lighter scrutiny |
| Eligibility | Typically convicts who have served part of sentence | Convicts and undertrials with good conduct |
| Legal Custody | Prisoner remains in legal custody | Prisoner remains in legal custody |
| Return | Mandatory return on parole expiry | Mandatory return after furlough |
4. Important Case Laws on Parole and Furlough
Case 1: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Facts:
A Public Interest Litigation addressing prisoners’ rights, including parole and furlough.
Issue:
Whether parole and furlough can be denied arbitrarily violating prisoner rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that parole and furlough are privileges, not rights, but arbitrary denial violates Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
Significance:
Recognized need for fair procedure and reasoned orders in granting parole and furlough.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (1983)
Facts:
Prisoner’s parole was revoked without proper inquiry.
Issue:
Whether parole revocation without inquiry violates natural justice.
Holding:
Court held that revocation of parole requires adherence to principles of natural justice; prisoner must be heard.
Significance:
Ensured procedural safeguards in parole management.
Case 3: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts:
Though primarily about preventive detention, the Court emphasized due process in liberty restrictions.
Issue:
Applicability of natural justice principles in parole and furlough decisions.
Holding:
Court held that even privileges like parole require fair procedure under Article 21.
Significance:
Extended due process protection to parole and furlough.
Case 4: Shyam Sunder v. Union of India (1983)
Facts:
The question was about refusal of furlough to an eligible prisoner.
Issue:
Whether refusal of furlough requires reasoned order.
Holding:
Court ruled that denial of furlough without valid reasons is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Significance:
Reaffirmed parole/furlough as conditional privileges needing justification.
Case 5: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) (Second Phase)
Facts:
Petition about custodial rights and treatment during furlough.
Issue:
Whether prisoner can be harassed during furlough or parole.
Holding:
Court held prisoners on parole/furlough retain fundamental rights and must be protected from harassment.
Significance:
Ensured prisoners’ dignity and rights during temporary release.
Case 6: Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab (1993)
Facts:
Convict was denied parole despite satisfying eligibility criteria.
Issue:
Whether court can interfere in administrative decisions on parole.
Holding:
Court held that judicial interference is limited but can be invoked in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Significance:
Set parameters for judicial review of parole decisions.
5. Summary Table: Parole vs Furlough
| Feature | Parole | Furlough |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Competent authority under Prison Rules | Competent authority under Prison Rules |
| Grounds | Compassionate, urgent | Routine, festival-related |
| Duration | Longer (up to months) | Shorter (few days/weeks) |
| Eligibility | Usually convicts with good conduct | Convicts and sometimes under-trials |
| Legal effect | Prisoner released conditionally | Temporary leave from prison |
| Return | Mandatory on expiry | Mandatory on expiry |
| Judicial Review | Limited, except arbitrariness | Limited, except arbitrariness |
6. Conclusion
Parole and furlough are important privileges aimed at rehabilitation and humane treatment of prisoners.
They differ primarily in purpose, duration, and grounds for grant.
Courts have emphasized that these privileges must be granted or denied with fairness, reason, and following due process.
Judicial interventions ensure that prisoners are not arbitrarily deprived of these privileges and their fundamental rights are protected.
Effective use of parole and furlough can aid reintegration of offenders into society and reduce prison overcrowding.
RELATED Blog
0 comments