Landmark Order in PUCL’s Petition – Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs the Haryana Government to Re-examine the provisions which had put an absolute bar on grant of Parole and Furlough to a category of prisoners
Tags: parole rights, prison reforms, RehabilitationNotRetribution,
Related Issue: unconstitutional and arbitrary denial of parole and furlough to "hardcore prisoners" under the Haryana Prisoners Good Conduct Act, which violates their fundamental rights and undermines the rehabilitative goals of the criminal justice system
5th December 2013
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice AG Masih,
in a landmark judgment in a PIL filed by human rights organization PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties),
issued a direction to the State Government to reexamine the newly inserted provisions of the Haryana Prisoners
Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act so as to eliminate the absolute bar to grant parole and furlough to
“Hardcore prisoners”. The decision is bound to bring cheer to thousands of prisoners languishing in the
Haryana’s jails, who had been barred from even being considered for the concession of temporary release
through parole and furlough. This Act had been amended last year to create a fairly wider category of “hardcore
prisoners” which were to be absolutely barred under Section 5A of the Act from being released on parole or
furlough.
The Court stated there should be a median between absolute bar and absolute discretion. It further stated that
while the State may impose conditions for grant of parole and furlough, in order to prevent misuse of parole etc,
there cannot be an absolute bar from even being considered for parole or furlough. It also stated that misuse of
temporary release/parole provisions and irrational release from prison must also stop. The Court relied on a
Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Dinesh Kumar v Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi where
similar Furlough guidelines which barred certain classes of prisoners absolutely had been declared
unconstitutional being an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution as it had been held that “..Clause 26.4 of
Guidelines, 2010 in the present form does not stand judicial scrutiny which makes persons persons ineligible for
furlough merely on the basis of the nature of crime committed by them. It would amount to snatching their right
to at least consider their cases for grant of furlough.”
The Court stated that care must be taken while deciding to granting furlough and parole and stated that every
case must be decided on its merits.
The State Counsel, AAG Haryana, said that a long time was needed to comply with the Court’s orders stating
that they had to collect information and material regarding hardcore prisoners and parole jumpers in order to
reexamine the matter. To this the Bench quipped that if you didn’t have material earlier, on what basis did you
bring about this amendment under challenge? The Court disposed off the petition and gave the State about two
months to comply with its orders to reexamine the issue i.e. by February 28, 2014.
Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Arjun Sheoran had argued that a blanket bar under Section 5A is arbitrary
and unjust and thus violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution as each prisoner who has displayed good
conduct in prison, must be at least considered for being granted parole and furlough. He had also argued that
good conduct in prison and not the crime committed is the paramount/relevant criteria for getting Furlough and
Parole because as per the Act. This is because, after the application of reformatory methods while in prison,
there is rebuttable presumption that the convict has reformed and thus the original crime committed, even if
serious, must not preclude the convict from being considered for parole or furlough.
He also argued that the definition and category of “Hardcore Prisoner” is arbitrary and fanciful as several of the
crimes it includes cannot be said to hardcore or dangerous while several others which could be categorized as
equally, if not more dangerous and violent have been left out
He also stated that as per the report of the CAG’s Report on Haryana’s prisons, 98.1 % report back only about
1.9% prisoners did not report back. Furthermore he stated that stricter compliance of existing laws to prevent
misuse of parole and harsher laws were the answer to problem of convicts jumping parole, because as per the
CAG Report the Haryana Police and Prisons department needs to increase coordination, ensure registration of
FIRs, forfeit bonds of sureties of such convicts jumping parole, instead of unnecessarily and arbitrarily covering
up for their mistakes by barring several convicts from getting parole.
It was also argued that there was factual basis to say that only hardcore prisoners are more likely to jump parole
or commit crimes compared to non-hardcore prisoners.
Petitioner’s counsel Arjun Sheoran apprised the court to the fact that it has been proved world over and also
noted by the Supreme Court of India that Parole/Furlough are part of the rehabilitative and reformatory process
and arbitrary non-grant of it leads to indiscipline, recidivism, maladjustment of prisoners, violence. He said that
the blanket ban on hardcore prisoners from even being considered for parole or furlough would lead to
indiscipline inside jail as there would remain no worthy system of incentivizing good conduct in jails.
He said that with no way of maintaining familial and societal ties during long period of incarceration would also
lead to increased propensity for violence in jails, maladjustment of prisoners when they are finally released and
consequently, would increase the chances of recidivism. Thus, the Amendment Act would have detrimental
effects on the society as a whole.
It may be noted PUCL is India’s largest civil liberties and human rights organization and was founded in 1976 by
Sh. Jayaprakash Narayan and this matter was filed by PUCL’s Haryana Unit.
Arjun Sheoran, Spokesperson, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Punjab and Haryana