Ram Rahim's Parole Saga: Legal Questions, And Call For Reforms

The recent timeline of granting him parole in the past two years unfolds as follows: 3-week furlough in February 2022, followed by a month-long parole in June, and a 40-day parole in October. The trend continued in 2023 with another 40-day parole in January, a 30-day parole in July, and a 21-day furlough in November, and This is his second parole in less than two months, granted on January 19, 2024, for a duration of 50 days, without assigning any reasons.

At A Glance: What the Law Says?

Parole and Furlough are legal mechanisms which allows a convicted prisoner to be released from prison for a determinable duration, so that he/she can maintain his societal connect and should not start considering himself as outcasted person from the society. The primary object lies in maintaining a balanced approach so that the day when that person has to be released from the prison, he can seamlessly reintegrate in the society, or if he is a life term prisoner, he doesn't lose the hope of living. This whole concept aligns with rehabilitation/reformative criminal law system.

The primary legislations dealing with criminal laws in India, Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not contain any provisions related to Parole/Furlough. It is administered by the rules made under the Prison Act, 1894, Prisoner Act, 1900, and the prison rules of respective states.

In the case at hand, the rules, regulations, and procedures of Parole/Furlough are governed by the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (TemporaryRelease) Act, 2022, which, inter alia, provides that a person, in normal circumstances, can be released on maximum 91 days duration from the prison, collectively for Parole and Furlough. Apparently, in the years 2022 and 2023, Ram Rahim was granted leave for the whole maximum duration.

The mechanism of the act envisages for Regular Parole, emergency Parole, custody Parole, and Furlough.

• Regular Parole: Section 3 provides that a regular Parole cannot be granted for the period exceeding 10 weeks in a year, which can be availed in two parts. The grounds can be death in family, depreciation in health of oneself or family member, breaking the monotony of prison life, filing of further appeal etc. The period for which the Regular Parole is granted shall not be counted towards the actual sentence of a prisoner.
• Emergency Parole: Section 5 provides that it can be granted to a prisoner when his family member dies, or his own health or the health of his family member deteriorates at a serious level. It can be granted for the maximum duration of 4 weeks cumulatively, can be availed in parts, upon the discretion of the competent authorities. The period for which the Emergency Parole is granted shall not be counted towards the actual sentence of a prisoner.
• Custody Parole: It means; escorting the convicted prisoner under armed police custody to the place of visit. Section 6 states that it can be granted for the maximum duration of 6 hours. The period is treated as period spent in jail.
• Furlough: Section 4 of the act prescribes that a convicted person cannot be granted Furlough for the period exceeding 3 weeks, 4 in case of prisoner who has completed his three/fourth of the total sentence in case of term sentence and ten years in case of life imprisonment, cumulatively in a year. This cannot be availed in parts, and the period of release under this section shall count towards the actual sentence undergone by a prisoner.

The concepts of Parole and Furlough may appear superficially similar, but they are not, as explained by the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of State of Gujarat vs Narayan Sai. In contrast to Parole, Furlough is exclusively granted in cases involving long-term sentences. Moreover, unlike Parole, where the sentence is paused for the duration spent outside the prison, in the case of Furlough, the time spent away is considered as part of the punishment.

Concerns, Criticisms and Way Forward

The frequent and consistent Parole granted To Ram Rahim has sparked a range of emotions, including fear, anger and disappointment in the victims, their family members, and general public. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which manages gurudwaras in states of Punjab and Haryana, has been consistently and vehemently opposing the release. Furthermore, in the past, the Punjab government had also informed the High Court that granting frequent parole to Singh may lead to law and order problems in the state.

However, while defending the action taken by the authorities, the Haryana Government affirmed that the application has been treated legally, the due process is followed, and he has been afforded the opportunity to rehabilitate in the society. It also submitted in the court that the Dera Sacha Sauda chief does not fall under the definition of a hardcore prisoner, as defined in the act, hence is being treated at par with normal convicts.

The court, upon the request of the petitioners, had asked to the Haryana Government to furnish the report that whether the other prisoners are also getting the similar treatment? Whether they are also able to avail the Parole benefits in such a frequent, smooth and efficient manner? The report is yet to be published.

It may or may not be a case of preferential treatment, favoritism, and political influence, but such frequent releases raise valid public concerns. A convicted person for heinous offenses such as multiple rapes and murders should not be treated in such a lenient manner. Moreover, the significant amount of time spent outside prison due to paroles raises concerns about whether his sentence is being meaningfully served. It also erodes public trust in the judicial system. Furthermore, frequent releases can be re-traumatizing for victims and their families, constantly reopening wounds and raising anxieties.

The possible solution to the situation would be that the rights of the convicted person should always be considered in proportion to the rights of the sufferers of his crime. An independent review mechanism should be established, applications of such convicts should be reviewed strictly, reasons should be carefully evaluated and specifically mentioned, and its impact on victims and society should be given equal weightage.

Undoubtedly, the call for freedom and liberty is the highest call of conscience; therefore, breaking the monotony of prison life is necessary for serving the effective purpose of humanity. By addressing these concerns and implementing safeguards, the legal system can work towards ensuring that parole serves its intended purpose of rehabilitation and reintegration while upholding public safety and maintaining public trust in the justice system.

Views are personal.