Deergh Uppal
Parole is the release of an inmate with the condition of good conduct, either temporarily for a particular occasion or completely before the end of a sentence; such a promise is regarded as a word of honor given in the parole decree.
Meaning of Parole
The term parole comes from the French phrase “je donne ma parole,” which means “I give my word.” Prisoners of war used this term to make a vow to their captors in exchange for their freedom.
In plain terms, parole is the pre-mature conditional provisional discharge of an inmate on the condition of abiding by the rules and observing those limits in order to obtain the benefit of returning to society and socialising with family and friends while maintaining correctional theory in mind and planning to return to his social life. It is only a temporary termination of the sentence, with the sentence’s quantum remaining unchanged. If paroled inmates violate the terms of their release, they will be sent back to jail.
Objective of Parole
Parole leaves are innovative correctional services measures. The below are the key objectives for releasing inmates on furlough and parole under Rule 1(A) and 19 of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959:
- To enable the inmate to maintain contact with his family and deal with personal issues.
- To Protect the inmate from the negative consequences of long-term confinement.
- To assist the inmate in maintaining and increasing his self-esteem.
- To encourage the inmate to cultivate a positive outlook on life and an active interest in it.
Section 432 CPC and Parole
The Power to Suspend or Remit Sentences is covered by Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, published in AIR 2000 SC 1023, the Supreme Court stated categorically that “parole does not lead to suspension of sentence.” As a result, it is clear that Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to parole.
The laws governing the award of parole was regulated by the Prison Acts of 1894 and 1900. Many state legislatures have since developed protocols to promote objectivity and make decision-making easier when deciding whether or not to recommend parole in a specific situation.
Such decisions are made in compliance with guidance that are updated on a regular basis. The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, is passed under section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1984, which gives the government the authority to make rules.
Furlough is given as a good conduct remission to break up the monotony of incarceration. Furlough is a temporary discharge from jail that is granted in the event of long-term detention. The inmate does not have to serve the remainder of his or her term on furlough, which is the case for parole.
Types of Parole
1.Regular Parole
For the purposes mentioned below, all inmates qualifying for furlough are also eligible for regular parole:
- Delivery of child by wife (except high security risk prisoners)
- Serious illness of father/mother/spouse/ son/daughter
- In the event of natural calamities for instance flood, house collapse, earthquake, fire and so on.
- To follow the filing of special leave petition before supreme court against a verdict given by High Court convicting or upholding the conviction (as the case may be).
2. Emergency Parole or Custody parole
Except for foreigners and those undertaking death sentences, all convicted persons can be eligible for emergency parole for 14 days for causes such as the death of a grandfather or grandmother, father/mother/spouse/son/daughter/brother/sister, and the engagement of a son/daughter/brother/sister, providing that emergency parole cannot be extended.
Emergency parole is granted by the Superintendent of Police in the event of the death of a parent’s grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister, and by the concerned Dy. I.G. in the event of the marriage of a son/daughter/brother/sister, and the authority approving emergency parole shall decide whether to grant parole under police escort or with the condition of reporting daily to a police station. Prior to his parole date, the inmate would be responsible for the costs of police escort.
Except in the event of the death of his nearest kin, an inmate will not be released on regular or emergency parole until a duration of one year following the expiration of his last emergency or regular parole.
Case Laws
In the case of Election Commission of India vs. Mukhtar Ansari, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that custody parole cannot be used as a replacement for bail and that it cannot be prolonged for long stretches of time or for regular visits.
The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, stated in (2017) 15 S.C.C. 55, is significant because it deals with the award or denial of parole. In the Gujrat High Court judgement Vasram Gagji vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. dated 29.06.1992, the ratio decidendi said, “Rejection of parole leave shall not be maintainable if it is denying prison justice.”
Dr. Jalees Ansari, also known as Dr. Bomb, was recently released on parole by the Supreme Court after being convicted in the Ajmeer blasts, Jaipur serial blast, and Malegaon blast cases. He was accused of plotting and executing over 50 bomb blasts across the country since the early 1990s and was presently serving a life sentence.
He was last seen on January 16, 2020, as he was due to report the next day. Manu Sharma, who is serving a life sentence for murdering model Jessica Lall in 1999, has been given 18 days of parole to complete his LLB course and register his engagement. Actor Sanjay Dutt was given over five months of parole and furlough during his five-year prison sentence for his part in the 1993 Mumbai bombings.
Mr. Atul Rai, who won last year’s Lok Sabha election from the Ghosi parliamentary constituency in Mau, Uttar Pradesh, was recently given parole for two days in order to take his oath as a Member of Parliament in New Delhi by the Allahabad High Court.
Statutory Provisions
Under Chapter 20 of the recently promulgated Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the debate about premature release is redirected toward the correction and rehabilitation of prisoners by reintegrating them into society while also maintaining the society’s security from further illegal activities by such criminals.
The line between rehabilitation and punishment is always seen as weak, but with guarantees for early release of prisoners, commutation of sentences, and the Head of State’s powers under Article 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution, an effort has been made to envision their absorption into society.
One of the most important criteria for early release is that the inmate has become “harmless” and may be reclaimed as a contributing member of society. The procedure for deciding the same must be open and impartial. Their’ rehabilitative capacity’ is measured based on their actions, behavior, and success while incarcerated.
It is mandatory for the government to establish a Sentence Review Board (hereinafter referred to as SRB) for this reason, which has the authority to recommend the early release of prisoners. In S 1256 Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the protocol to be implemented by the Board is outlined in detail.
Furthermore, any prisoner, male or female, under the scope of S 433 Cr. P. C. has the right to be eligible for early release after they have served 14 years of substantive parole without receiving remissions, at the SRB’s discretion. Although a minimum of fourteen years is expected for parole, convicted criminals can be considered after 20 years, including remissions, in cases of heinous crimes. Female convicts that are not subject to S 433 Cr. P. C. who are serving a life term will only be considered after serving seven years of substantive incarceration without remissions.
Judicial pronouncements
In Sangeet and Others vs State of Haryana (2013) and Union of India vs V Srihara Murugan and Others, the Supreme Court addressed the rule and practice pertaining to the premature release of prisoners in depth (2016).
Sangeet and Others vs State of Haryana: The Supreme Court read Section 432 and held that the government’s duty to obtain the advice of the judge who sentenced or upheld the sentence was mandatory. “Before exercising the power of remission under Section 432 CrPC, the competent Government shall obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming court,” it said. As a result, remissions can only be granted on a case-by-case basis, not in bulk.”
Union of India vs V Sriharan Murugan and Others: The case emerged after the Centre challenged the then-J Jayalalithaa government’s decision to commute seven of those convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to life in prison. A constitutional court ruled that a “appropriate government” cannot start the remission process on its own, but must wait for the inmate to apply.
“On such an application being made, the relevant government is expected to approach the Presiding Judge of the court before or under whom the conviction was made or reported to opine (with reasons) whether the application should be approved or refused,” the court said in Sangeet vs State of Haryana and Others.
The court also ruled that, for the purposes of Section 435, the term “consultation” must be interpreted as “central government concurrence.”