Emergency parole for prisoners shouldn't be restricted to death of relative alone: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently questioned a rule that prevented the release of prisoners on parole unless they completed a year and a half in prison, the sole exception for earlier release on emergency parole being the death of a near relative [Balaji s/o Abhaji Puyad vs. State of Maharashtra].

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted that natural calamities, family illnesses and a pregnant wife's delivery are also unpredictable events which may warrant the prisoner's release on parole before the 1.5 year period elapses.

The Court ruled that in such situations, it is unreasonable to ask prisoner to wait for a year and half for parole, emphasizing that such restrictions are “manifestly arbitrary.”

The Court was considering a plea by one, Balaji Puyad who had applied for parole in September 2024 after his wife fell critically ill.

His parole request was denied by the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison in September, stating that petitioner had returned from his last furlough in April 2024, making him ineligible for another release until a year and a half period elapsed.

Notably, the prison authorities explained that there was a rule preventing the grant of parole to a prisoner unless he has spent at least a year and a half in prison after his admission to jail or since his last return from parole.

The Court, however, directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Nashik to reconsider its decision.

The Court noted that while death of a near relative is already classified under emergency parole, other unforeseen contingencies - like serious illness of close family members, a pregnant wife’s delivery, or natural disasters - are also unpredictable.

Prisoners should not be required to complete 1.5 years of imprisonment before seeking parole again for these contingencies, the Court said.

"Though, the cause like death, is now categorised into emergency parole, still the contingency like serious illness of father/mother/spouse/son/daughter; delivery of wife; natural calamities such as house collapse, flood, fire, earthquake definitely is an unforeseen contingency and one cannot speculate as to when such contingency will occur and, definitely, in such a case, the prisoner shall not be asked to wait for one and half year of actual imprisonment, to be undergone by him, when he seek parole leave on any of these contingencies, set out for availing regular parole," the Court observed in its October 25 ruling.

The State had informed that prisoners could be granted regular parole for serious family illness, a wife's delivery, or natural calamities.

However, it explained that a 2022 amendment to the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 prohibited such consideration if the prisoner had not completed one and half years of actual imprisonment from the date of admission to prison.

The Court observed that a similar proviso under the 2018 Rules was considered by the Full Bench, which concluded that it is implausible for any person to foresee the specific timing of contingencies such as serious illness or natural calamities for availing parole.

“We are really surprised to note that despite exposition of law to the aforesaid effect, an identical provision has found its way in the Furlough Rules,” the Court lamented.

The Court added that it was inclined to strike down the validity of this provision. However, since no direct challenge to it, the Court confined to considering only the case before it.

Accordingly, the Court directed the prison authorities to reassess the petitioner’s application on its merits within a week, without applying the restriction barring the grant of parole without the prisoner completing a year and a half in prison.

Advocates Rupesh Jaiswal and Anjali Raut appeared for the petitioner.  Additional Public Prosecutor Mankuwar Deshmukh represented the State.

[Read order]