Difference Between 'Parole' and 'Furlough' : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court has discussed the differences between 'furlough' and 'parole' and the principles relating to grant of them.

A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna stated the broad principles as :

(i) Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody;

(ii) While parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason;

(iii) The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society;

(iv) Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough;

(v) The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.

Referring to various precedents, the bench also observed that balance needs to be maintained between two competing interests while granting parole or furlough- that of reforming the convict on one hand and the public purpose and interests of society on the other:

The bench was deciding an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which granted two weeks' furlough to self-proclaimed godman and rape convict Asaram's son Narayan Sai who is also serving life term in a 2014 rape case. The convict had approached the High Court after the DGP rejected his application for furlough.

Furlough not a matter of right

Referring to the provisions of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, the bench noted that the Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be released on furlough. The grant of furlough is regulated by Rule 3 and Rule 4. While Rule 3 provides the eligibility criteria for grant of furlough for prisoners serving different lengths of imprisonment, Rule 4 imposes limitations. The use of the expression "may be released" in Rule 3 indicates the absence of an absolute right. This is further emphasised in Rule 17 which states that said Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough. 

The Court further noted that the the Jail Superintendent has given a negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone inside the jail illegally and attempted to make contacts with the outside world.

Setting aside the High Court order, the judgment authored by Justice Chandrachud stated :

"The order dated 8 May 2021 has adduced a number of circumstances which cumulatively indicate that the release of the respondent on furlough may lead to a violation of public peace. The order refers specifically to the threat he and his followers pose to the complainant and other persons who deposed at the trial. An attempt has been made to threaten and suborn the investigating team and the witnesses. The respondent and his father have a mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and there is a reasonable apprehension of a disruption of public peace and tranquillity. During the trial, attempts have been made to bribe public officials. The conduct after the trial, in jail, has not been shown to be above reproach. The respondent was released earlier this year to accommodate a genuine need to attend to his mother's health at the relevant time. Based on this, we are unable to agree with the line of reasoning of the High Court"

Case Details

Case Title : State of Gujarat versus Narayan Sai

Coram : Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna

Appearances : Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for State of Gujarat; Advocate Sanjiv Punalekar for respondent.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 577

Click here to read/download the judgment