Parole and Furlough – Difference and Legal Provisions

By Dhruva Vig

Introduction

The grant of Parole and Furlough to inmates can be regarded as a set of progressive measures of correctional services. The release of prisoner on parole not only saves such person from the evils of incarceration in a jail cell, but also enables him/her to maintain social relations with their family and community. It also helps the person to maintain and develop a sense of self-confidence.

A steady and continued contact with family and the community can help sustain a hope for life in such a person. The release of prisoner on furlough can also help motivate such person to maintain a good conduct and remain disciplined in the prison as well.

Parole, in layman terms, means a temporary release of the prisoner for short period of time, so that he/she may maintain social relations with his/her family and their respective community, in order to fulfil his/her familial and social obligations and responsibilities.

It can also be regarded as an opportunity for a prisoner to maintain regular contact with the outside world so that he/she may keep themself updated with the latest developments in the society. It is however clarified that the period spent by a prisoner outside the prison while on parole in no way is a concession so far as his sentence is concern.

The prisoner has to spend extra time in prison for the period spent by him outside the Jail on parole in some instances.

As discussed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh^[1], both “Furlough” and “Parole” are two distinct terms that are now being used in the Jail Manuals or laws relating to temporary release of prisoners more frequently. These two terms have acquired different meanings in the statutes with varied results. Dictionary meanings, therefore, are not quite helpful in discernment of such terms.

In this connection, one can refer to the statute of ‘Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988’ which had repealed the previous statute of ‘Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962’.

The Punjab Act was earlier applicable in the State of Haryana as well to govern the laws regarding temporary release. The language and enunciation of both the Acts is the same, and it may be useful to refer to the provisions of any of these two Acts to understand the difference between parole and furlough to some extent.

However, we must also note that such definitions might apply to one particular state and yet not apply to other, as mentioned before, as such terms might acquire different meanings under different statutes.

Definitions

Under Black’s Law Dictionary, the term ‘parole’ has been defined as the “conditional release of a prisoner from imprisonment before the full sentence has been served.” ^[2]

It further provides that although it is not available under some sentences, parole is usually granted for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period.

In contrast, the term ‘furlough’ has been defined as “a brief release from prison.”^[3]

Grounds for Temporary Release of Prisoners

Under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification that is issued/published in the Official Gazette, and which is subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed under the provisions of law, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2)^[4], any prisoner, if the Authority/State Government is satisfied upon the condition that-

• A member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or
• The marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or
• The temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or
• It is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause.

Furthermore, the period for which a prisoner may be released from prison shall be determined by the State Government under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, so as not to exceed-

• Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), three weeks;
• Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and
• Where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks.

Although, it has been provided under the Act that that the temporary release under clause (c) of Section 3, which can be availed more than once during the year of jail time, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed a period of six weeks in total.

It is further provided that the period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner. Also, the State Government may, by notification authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.

Temporary Release of Prisoners on Furlough

Under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government, by notification, and subject to such conditions mentioned in the Act, and in such manner as may be prescribed by law, release temporarily, on the account of furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years, and who-

• Has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the pre-sentence detention, if any;
• Has not during such period committed any jail offence (except an offence punished by a warning) and has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions.

It is, however, been provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who—

• Is a habitual offender as defined in sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952; or
• Has been convicted of dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify.

The said period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under sub-section (1) shall be of a period of three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter.

Furthermore, it is subjected to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 8, that the period of release referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, shall count towards the total period of the sentence which has been undergone by a prisoner.

Objectives of releasing a prisoner on Parole and Furlough

• To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with familial and social matters,
• To enable him to maintain and develop his self-confidence,
• To enable him to develop constructive hope and active interest in life,
• To help him remain in touch with the developments in the outside world,
• To help him remain physiologically and psychologically healthy,
• To enable him to overcome/recover from the stress and evil effects of incarceration, and
• To motivate him to maintain good conduct and discipline in the prison.

Legal Provisions

The Delhi Prisons Act, 2000

Section 2(h) defines the term “furlough”, which means ‘leave as a reward granted to a convicted prisoner who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years or more and has undergone three years thereof.”

Clause (p) defines “Parole system”, which means ‘the system of releasing prisoners from prison or parole by suspension of their sentences in accordance with the rules.”

Section 54 talks about the provision of punishment for not fulfilling conditions subject to which remission, etc has not been given, and where any prisoner who fails without sufficient cause to observe any of the conditions on, or subject to, which his sentence was remitted or suspend, or he was released on parole or furlough, the competent authority may cancel such order granting remission, suspension, or parole or furlough, and also-

• If the prisoner is at large, he shall be arrested by any police officer without a warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence;
• Shall on conviction by a Court, be punishable, in addition to the sentence he is undergoing with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 71 talks about the power of Government to make rules, where Clause (xxix) provides for the grant of parole, furlough and leave to prisoners.

Delhi Prison Rules, 2018

Chapter-XIX has provided a list of rules for regulation of Parole & Furlough in relation to the provisions relating to Custody and Regular Parole, the Procedure for disposal of Parole Applications, provisions relating to Furlough, the Procedure for disposal of Furlough Applications and other related provisions as well.

Judicial Approach

The Courts of this country have taken various views and opinions in discussing the laws related to both Parole and furlough, as well as they have provided, in some instances, the differences between the two. The most notable ones are as follows.

In the case of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh^[5], the apex Court was of the opinion that “‘furlough’ and ‘parole’ are two distinct terms now being used in the Jail Manuals or laws relating to temporary release of prisoners. These two terms have acquired different meanings in the statute with varied results. Dictionary meanings, therefore, are not quite helpful. It would be thus seen that when a prisoner is on parole his period of release does not count towards the total period of sentence while when he is on furlough, he is eligible to have the period of release counted towards the total period of his sentence undergone by him. The Delhi Jail Manual also uses the same terminology …”

In the case of Pralhad Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra^[6], the Court made the observation that there is a difference between furlough and parole, and held that furlough is a matter of right, whereas parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In the case of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.^[7], the Bombay High Court went over the provisions of the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 as amended by the Government Notification dated 16th April 2018, which lays down the objectives for grant of Furlough and Parole, as well as the rules relating to ‘Release of prisoner on Parole’ with regard to Emergency and Regular parole.

The question raised in this petition before the Court was referred for its resolution to a larger Bench, that whether a parole is a right or was it a concession offered by the State or a mere administrative decision of the State dictated by its administrative policy or a special right of a prisoner in special circumstances, or something else. The petitioner, however, was granted the liberty to apply afresh for seeking leave of furlough or parole on new grounds.

In the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi^[8], the High Court of Delhi laid down the meaning and purpose of both Parole and Furlough. The following observation were made by the bench-

“There is a subtle distinction between the two which has been explained by the Courts from time to time. A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e., an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Under the aforesaid guidelines, such a release of the prisoner is temporarily on some basic grounds. It is to be treated as mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations …

Parole, on the other hand, is the release of a person from the detention of custody even though substantial legal effect may be the same as bail. It is a temporary release from custody which does not suspend the sentence or period of detention. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from the prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long-term imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good conduct remission. A convict literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence or for rest of his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society. Convicts too must breathe fresh air for at least some time provided they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and show a tendency to reform themselves and become good citizens. Thus, redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for good of societies must receive due weight age while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.”

Reliance was also placed upon the Supreme Court through various pronouncements which have laid down the difference between parole and furlough, most notably in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Panduram^[9], as well as State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh^[10].

Further, in the landmark judgment of Charanjit Lal v. State of Delhi^[11] it was held:-

“(i) The four main objectives which a state intends to achieve by punishing an offender are-Deterrence, prevention, Retribution and Reformation.

(ii) Life convicts’ release from jail off and on for short periods has to be considered and opportunities have to be afforded to them not only to solve their personal and family problems but also to maintain their links with society.

(iii) They must breathe fresh air for at least sometime provided, of course, they maintain good conduct consistently during incarceration and they show a tendency to reform them and become good citizens.

(iv) Redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners for the good of the society must receive due weight while they are undergoing sentence of imprisonment.”

Conclusion

In recent times, there has been a substantial diversion from the previously existing popular concept of ‘retribution’ of an offender. Of late, the focus of the law has shifted upon the theory of ‘reformation’ of person, rather than a retributive path. The earlier criminal law concept of an ‘eye for eye’ and ‘a tooth for tooth’ has been replaced by a more humane concept which lays greater emphasis upon the re-allocation of an accused into the society.

The concepts of both parole and furlough can be regarded as a step towards the accomplishment of this very purpose of reforming such persons.

The provisions relating to both parole and furlough provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in the four walls of a cell. The main purpose of such provisions is to afford to such prisoners an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems, and to enable them to maintain their links with society.

Even the citizens itself of this country hold a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society rather than being banished for long durations. The people who leave such prisons without any strong networks of support, or without any employment prospects as such, or without a fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they will be returning to, and without the adequate resources, stand a significantly higher chance of failing to become a active member of the society.

When such offenders end up reverting back to criminal activity upon their release, they frequently do so because they lack the hope of merging into society as accepted citizens of honour and status.

Thus, Furloughs and Paroles can help prepare offenders for success in their distinct walks of life.

1. State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394; 2000 SCC (Cri) 645 (Cri. Appeal No. 141 of 2000) ↑
2. Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th ed., p.1227 ↑
3. Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th ed., p.745 ↑
4. Section 3(2), Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 ↑
5. Supra ↑
6. Pralhad Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 122 : (1994) 2 Mah LJ 1584 : (1996) 1 Bom CR 522 : 1994 Cri LJ 2555 (Cri. W.P. No. 264 of 1993, Decided on March 31, 1994) ↑
7. Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 653 (Cri. W.P. No. 1046 of 2018, Decided on March 14, 2019) ↑
8. Dinesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2507 : (2012) 129 DRJ 502 : 2012 Cri LJ 2959 (W.P.(C) 1229 of 2012, W.P.(C) 1230 of 2012, W.P.(C) 1231 of 2012 & W.P.(C) 8279 of 2010, Decided on May 1, 2012) ↑
9. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Panduram, 2006 AIR SC 2471 : (2006) 4 SCC 776 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 411 (Cri. Appeal No. 421 of 2006, decided on April 13, 2006) ↑
10. supra ↑
11. Charanjit Lal v. State of Delhi 1985 SCC OnLine Del 67 : (1985) 9 DRJ 135 : ILR (1986) 2 Del 417 : (1985) 28 DLT 92 : 1985 Cri LJ 1541 : (1985) 2 Ch LR 89 (Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 619 of 1984, Decided on : 12-2-1985) ↑