No absolute legal right to furlough: Supreme Court rejects furlough request of rape convicted Godman Narayan Sai

A prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough and grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday while rejecting self styled Godman Narayan Sai's plea for furlough (State of Gujarat v. Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan Asaram)..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna allowed the appeal filed by the Gujarat government challenging a Gujarat High Court order which had granted furlough to Sai."The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be released on furlough...Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough," the judgment said.The High Court had set aside the decision of the Director General of Police (DGP) refusing furlough citing Sai's criminal activities and attempts to threaten witnesses in the case. .The Supreme Court while deciding the matter formulated certain broad principles regarding the difference between bail, parole and furlough.(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.In the instant case, Sai was convicted in a rape case by a Surat court in April 2019 on a complaint by two women that they were raped between 2002 and 2005 at a Surat ashram run by him and his father Asaram Bapu. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (assault), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code..In December 2020, Sai was granted a two-week furlough to visit his ailing mother in AhmedabadDue to the ill-health of his mother, he was again released on temporary bail from January 31, 2021 to February 3, 2021.He again applied for furlough in March 2021 but the same was rejected by the DGP on May 8, 2021. However, the High Court granted furlough in June.The High Court's reasoning was that the grounds furnished by the DGP for denying furlough were considered by the High Court in its previous order of December 2020, pursuant to which the respondent had been released on furlough for a period of two weeks. Further, no untoward incident had taken place after the respondent was released in December 2020 and the respondent did not misuse the liberty granted to him during the period of furlough.The Gujarat government challenged the order before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court noted that when Sai was granted furlough in December 2020, the ill health of his mother was pressed as a reason and other factors were not considered.The Supreme Court also said that the Bombay Furlough and Parole 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, the Court said."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. Thus the grant of release on furlough is a discretionary remedy circumscribed by Rules 3 and 4 extracted above," the Bench stated.Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough, the Court said.The grant of furlough, the Court emphasised, must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.In the instant case, the Court noted that the order of DGP dated May 8, 2021 adduced a number of circumstances which cumulatively indicated 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 Supreme Court noted.The December 2020 order granting furlough did not consider these aspects since the sole consideration there was the ill-health of the convict's mother."The previous order of the High Court did not deal with these submissions. The order only referred to the fact that the respondent’s mother was suffering on account of a cardiac arrest and granted furlough on this basis," the Court said..It, therefore, set aside the Gujarat High Court order and held that the opinion of the sanctioning authority under the Rules does not suffer from perversity..[Read Judgment]