Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts have consistently ruled that the classification based on the severity of the offense or behavior (such as escape attempts) is rational and serves the legitimate aim of public safety, thus not violating constitutional rights ["JUVANSINGH LAKHUBHAI JADEJA VS STATE - Gujarat"], ["Deepak Kumar VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Shankar Tiwari VS Inspectorate General - Bombay"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["ISHWARSINH M. RAJPUT VS STATE - 1990 0 Supreme(Guj) 150"]- ["Raju @ Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede vs D.I.G. (Prisons) (E)(R), Nagpur - Bombay"]- ["Ishwar Singh M. Rajput VS State of Gujarat - Crimes"]- ["JUVANSINGH LAKHUBHAI JADEJA VS STATE - Gujarat"]- ["Deepak Kumar VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["National Alliance for People's Movements VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["Santosh Namdeo Bhukan VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["Sharad Devaram Shelake VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["Avtar Singh VS State Of Haryana - 2002 2 Supreme 23"]- ["Dinesh Kumar VS Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi - Delhi"]- ["Raju alias Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede VS D. I. G. Prisons (E)(R) Nagpur - Bombay"]- ["Surender @ Choti VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["AVTAR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA - Supreme Court"]- ["Pundalik G. Gole VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["BHIKHABHAI DEVSHI VS STATE - Gujarat"]- ["Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal VS Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division - Bombay"]- ["Bhikhabhai VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["Shankar Tiwari VS Inspectorate General - Bombay"]- ["Bhikhabhai Devshi v. State of Gujarat and Others - Gujarat"]
In the realm of prison reforms and constitutional rights, one pressing question often arises: Excluding a class of prisoners for furlough benefit whether is violative of Art 14 and 21? Furlough, a temporary release from prison, serves as a rehabilitative tool, allowing inmates to maintain family ties and reintegrate into society. However, when certain classes of prisoners—such as those convicted of serious offenses like drug trafficking or robbery—are excluded, it sparks debates on equality (Article 14) and personal liberty (Article 21). This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from judicial precedents to clarify if such exclusions are constitutionally sound. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Furlough is typically a short-term release granted to prisoners as a matter of right after serving a portion of their sentence, distinct from parole which is conditional. Indian prison manuals and acts like the Prisons Act, 1894, outline eligibility, but exclusions for specific classes raise constitutional flags. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, permitting reasonable classification if it has a rational nexus with the law's object. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, prohibiting arbitrary deprivations.
Excluding classes based on offense nature, conduct, or security risks is common. For instance, prisoners under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, face rigorous conditions: certain classes of prisoners cannot get the benefit of furlough under Section 4, unlike less stringent parole under Section 3 Sant Ram VS State Of Haryana - 2009 Supreme(P&H) 1497. This highlights legislative intent to deter grave crimes like drug trafficking.
Article 14 does not bar classification but demands it be intelligible, rational, and linked to the law's purpose. Courts have upheld exclusions for prisoners convicted of offenses under Sections 392 to 402 IPC (robbery, dacoity), rejecting claims of discrimination. Challengers argued: if prisoners convicted for more serious offences such as murder are not excluded from taking furlough leave, why the petitioner prisoner covered by R. 4(2) should be denied the right to claim furlough leave Mohammad Parvez Abdulkyum Shaikh VS State of Gujarat - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 986. Yet, the Division Bench reasoned that penal reforms must consider societal benefit, validating the rule as non-arbitrary Mohamad Yunus Abdul Rahim Sareshwala VS State Of Gujarat - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 985.
Similarly, geographical and security-based restrictions, like barring escort visits beyond Kerala except for a relative's death, demonstrate valid criteria B. G. Krishnamurthy S/o. B. K. Gopal Rao VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 67. For NDPS convicts, denial of furlough/parole does not violate Article 14, as classification targets curbing illicit traffic and drug abuse ISHWARSINH M. RAJPUT VS STATE - 1990 0 Supreme(Guj) 150. Key takeaway: Such exclusions are permissible if rationally tied to objectives like public safety.
Article 21 safeguards against arbitrary liberty deprivation, but prisoners lack an absolute right to furlough—it's a privilege contingent on facts and circumstances ISHWARSINH M. RAJPUT VS STATE - 1990 0 Supreme(Guj) 150. Courts clarify: not releasing the prisoner convicted under the Narcotics Act on parole or furlough would not amount to inhumane treatment ISHWARSINH M. RAJPUT VS STATE - 1990 0 Supreme(Guj) 150.
In life imprisonment cases under IPC Section 302 (murder), denials based solely on police reports were scrutinized, especially when co-convicts received furlough. Every case has to be taken on an individual basis and report shall need to be obtained and examined accordingly merely on ground that person is undergoing imprisonment and also convicted under POTA may not be ground of denying furlough leave, when coconvicts have already been granted on very ground Mohammad Parvez Abdulkyum Shaikh VS State of Gujarat - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 986. Here, stereotyped negative reports lacked explanation for differential treatment, leading to allowance Mohamad Yunus Abdul Rahim Sareshwala VS State Of Gujarat - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 985. However, this underscores case-specific review, not blanket invalidation of class exclusions.
Restrictions serve legislative goals without crossing into cruelty, as affirmed in interpretations upholding fundamental rights Avtar Singh VS State Of Haryana - 2002 2 Supreme 23.
Courts consistently support reasoned exclusions:
In premature release petitions, courts direct individual assessments per manuals, balancing remission, parole, and bail periods Sant Ram VS State Of Haryana - 2009 Supreme(P&H) 1497. These precedents affirm: classifications based on offense severity, conduct, or risk are constitutional.
While generally valid, exclusions must avoid arbitrariness. If lacking rational basis—e.g., uniform denial without nexus to objectives—it could invite Article 14/21 challenges. Judicial scrutiny ensures:
For instance, POTA/murder convicts denied furlough despite co-convicts' grants prompted relief due to unexplained disparity Mohammad Parvez Abdulkyum Shaikh VS State of Gujarat - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 986. Generally, courts intervene only on arbitrariness, upholding rational schemes.
To withstand scrutiny:- Base exclusions on clear criteria: Offense nature, conduct, security risk.- Ensure nexus: Link to legislative aims like crime deterrence.- Promote transparency: Explicit rules in manuals/acts, uniform enforcement.- Individual review: Especially for long-term prisoners, per precedents.
Legislators and prisons should refine rules, as in Punjab Jail Manual, for equitable remission/parole counting Sant Ram VS State Of Haryana - 2009 Supreme(P&H) 1497.
Excluding a class of prisoners from furlough benefits does not inherently violate Articles 14 and 21, provided the classification is reasonable, rational, and non-arbitrary ISHWARSINH M. RAJPUT VS STATE - 1990 0 Supreme(Guj) 150. Judicial precedents reinforce this, prioritizing societal protection while allowing rehabilitative privileges where apt. This framework promotes prison reforms without compromising public safety.
Key Takeaways:- Reasonable classification is valid under Article 14.- Furlough denial isn't inhumane under Article 21.- Case-by-case scrutiny prevents abuse.
Stay informed on evolving prison laws—reforms continue to balance rights and order.
#PrisonerRights, #Article14, #FurloughLaw
14 or Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. ... Mehta that Sec. 32a of the Narcotics Act is violative of Art 14 and/or Art. 21 of the Constitution of India or that the word shall should be read as may. ... Mehta that Sec. 32t is violative of Art. 14 and/or Art. 21 on the ground that it amounts to inhuman treatment to the prisoners convicted und....
However, in the former case, the petitioner would be denied the benefit of furlough. It is submitted that this results into invidious classification, which has no connection with the object sought to be achieved and thus is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. ... The question in the present petition is as to the validity of R.4 (10) of the 1959 Rules, when tested on the touch stone of Art.14 / Art.21 of the Constitutio....
If the Legislature provides that the said benefit shall not be given to the prisoners convicted for a particular type of offences, then it cannot be said that the said restriction is illegal or ultra vires articles 14 or article 21 of the Constitution of India. ... Mehta that Sections 32A of the Narcotics Act is violative of article 14 and/ or article 21 of the Constitution of India or that the word "shall" should be read as "may". ... Libeny is not a considered conce....
It runs thus :-4 When prisoners shall not be granted furlough :- the following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough :- (1) Habitual prisoners. (2) Prisoners convicted of offences under secs. 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code. (3) Prisoners convicted ... Daru as amicus curiae appearing for the petitioner that rule 4 (2) which disentitles a prisoner convicted of offences under secs. 392 to 402 (both inclusive) to cla....
14. 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. ... At the same time, the public interest also demands that those who are habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit the crime time and again are not casually extended benefit of furlough or parole. ... 21#HL_EN....
(ii) Whether proviso to Rule 19(2) introduced in terms of notification dated 16th April, 2019 is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if yes, what treatment must it be given? ... the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 releases (whether on parole or furlough). ... Accordingly, the said proviso to Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1959 introduced in terms of Notification dated 16-4-2018 is struck down as violative of Articles #....
It is not possible to uphold the contention that sub-rules 11 to 19 of Rule 4 is discriminatory in character and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ... Whether or not the offence is more serious is not the relevant consideration for withholding furlough. The relevant consideration is whether his release will expose the society to any danger. ... We have already observed in paragraph 21 above why we are of the opinion that release of prisoners fal....
It is not possible to uphold the contention that sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 is discriminatory in character and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ... In view of the above, there is no substance in the argument that the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is violated and sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 falls foul of that mandate. ... Having come to the conclusion that the gravity of the offence can be the basis for a valid classification, we will now consider whether the off....
that it is violative of Article 14 and Article 21. ... This section also provides that the benefit of furlough cannot be granted to the class of prisoners mentioned in proviso to sub-section (1). The period of such temporary release has been fixed in sub-section (2). ... Moreover certain classes of prisoners cannot get the benefit of furlough. ... 15. Before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunil Batra v. ... ....
According to the petitioners, this Clause is arbitrary and unreasonable and not based on any intelligible differentia and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ... Under the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the contention that Rule 4(2) is discriminatory in character and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ... It would amount to snatching their right to at least consider their cases for grant of furlough. We thus, strike down this provision as unconstitutiona....
It was contended that if prisoners convicted for more serious offences such as murder are not excluded from taking furlough leave, why the petitioner prisoner covered by R. 4(2) should be denied the right to claim furlough leave. In that case, the challenge was to the validity of R. 4(2) which disentitled prisoners convicted of offences under Ss. 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the I.P.C. (robbery, dacoity, etc.) to furlough leave. The prisoners of that category are totally considered ineligible for furlough and the R. 4(2) was challenged as violative of Art 14 of the Constitution.#....
The prisoners of that category are totally considered ineligible for furlough and the R. 4(2) was challenged as violative of Art 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that if prisoners convicted for more serious offences such as murder are not excluded from taking furlough leave, why the petitioner prisoner covered by R. 4(2) should be denied the right to claim furlough leave. The Division Bench held as under: "But in introducing penal reforms, the State which runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful....
Clause 14 makes it clear that only well behaved prisoners and prisoners falling under certain categories can be granted furlough and furlough is not a right which can be granted to all prisoners. It is stated that if there is breach of conditions, it can lead to loss of privilege admissible under the remission, parole or furlough system. Thus, even in the decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhikhabhai Devshi (supra), it is held, as is clear from paragraph 18 thereof, that furlough is not an absolute right of the prisoner and furlough can be g....
Act, 1988 would reveal that the conditions of temporary release on furlough under Section 4 ibid is more rigorous and a prisoner shall not be entitled to such temporary release unless he condition laid down in the said Section, whereas in Section 3 ibid, no such rigorous condition has been imposed. This apart, certain classes of prisoners cannot get the benefit of furlough. It can be reasonably culled out of the afore- quoted case law, Paragraph of Punjab Jail Manual, circulars that the parole period counts towards the actual sentence but is subtracted from the total senten....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
