It is universally acknowledged that the provision of opportunities for individuals to rectify their transgressions is imperative. This principle finds resonance in the consideration of parole within the framework of the criminal justice system. Parole laws, a pivotal facet thereof, entails the conditional release of incarcerated individuals, either temporarily or permanently, premised upon their demonstrated adherence to prescribed behavioral standards, prior to the expiration of their imposed sentences. Consequently, an examination of the pertinent parole legislation in India, the attendant eligibility criteria, its societal utility, and its efficacy as a mechanism for social reintegration vis-à-vis the potential for recidivism assumes paramount significance. The present discourse endeavors to undertake a comprehensive exploration of these inquiries within diverse legal contexts.
What Constitutes Parole and What are the Parole Statutes in India?
The term “parole” originates from the French phrase “je donne ma parole,” meaning “I give my word.” Within its legal context, parole denotes a conditional release granted to an offender who has served a portion of their sentence. This release is subject to supervision and specific conditions imposed by the relevant authorities.
Parole operates as a legal instrument intended to facilitate correctional processes, rehabilitation efforts, and societal reintegration, all while safeguarding public welfare
The Historical Progression of Parole Legislation in India
Alexander Maconochie, a Scottish geographer and Captain in the Royal Navy, introduced the concept of parole in 1840 while serving as the Superintendent of British penal colonies. His initiative aimed to not only impose sanctions on offenders for their transgressions but also to foster rehabilitation and readiness for societal reintegration, thereby transcending mere completion of prescribed sentences.
Maconochie devised a hierarchical system comprising three tiers. Advancement through these tiers was contingent upon demonstrated adherence to behavioral norms, educational endeavors, and productive engagement in labor. The highest tier afforded conditional release from confinement, subject to adherence to stipulated conditions. Non-compliance with these conditions resulted in the individual’s reversion to incarceration, necessitating a recommencement of the hierarchical progression.
Subsequent to initial iterations, this “ticket to leave” model underwent refinement, culminating in the establishment of what is now recognized as the world’s earliest formal parole system. Thereafter, individuals serving intermediate or indeterminate sentences became eligible for release predicated upon demonstrated good conduct. Fundamentally rooted in the notion of rehabilitation, this system posited that sentences should not merely serve as punitive measures but also as catalysts for reformation and eventual societal reintegration.
Francis Lieber further expounded upon principles related to parole within international legal frameworks such as the Hague Convention, Declaration of Brussels of 1874, and the Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Furthermore, Samuel G. Howe, a prominent Boston-based penal reformer, introduced the term “parole” within a correctional context in 1847.
Categories of Parole in India Primarily,
parole in India is classified into two main types: Emergency parole and Regular parole.
Emergency Parole or Custodial Parole
As the term suggests, custodial parole is authorized in exigent circumstances. Eligibility for emergency parole, lasting up to 14 days, extends to all incarcerated individuals except for foreign nationals and those sentenced to death, upon the occurrence of a familial bereavement (encompassing grandparents, parents, spouse, children, siblings) or the celebration of a family member’s marriage (encompassing children, siblings), subject to the stipulation that such parole cannot be extended.
The Superintendent of Police holds the authority to grant parole in the event of the demise of a parent, grandparent, spouse, child, or sibling, whereas the Deputy Inspector General assumes jurisdiction in cases of a child’s or sibling’s wedding.
Discretionary parole authorization rests with the Superintendent of the correctional facility, predicated upon an evaluation of circumstances by the pertinent police station. The decision to extend parole hinges upon the prisoner’s conduct during their period of confinement, and determines whether the parolee will be under police escort or required to report to the police station on a daily basis. The financial obligations associated with police escort are incumbent upon the parolee.
Regular or emergency parole eligibility is restricted until one year subsequent to the termination of the individual’s last emergency or regular parole, barring instances of a close relative’s demise.
Regular Parole
Subject to certain exceptions, incarcerated individuals who have completed at least one year of their sentence are eligible to petition for regular parole, typically granted for a duration of one month. The grounds upon which regular parole may be considered include:
The serious illness of a family member (encompassing father, mother, spouse, son, daughter). The demise or injury of a family member (as delineated under custodial parole, aforementioned). The marriage of a family member. The birth of a child to the convict’s spouse (excluding high-security risk prisoners). The need to maintain social or familial bonds. The occurrence of a natural calamity resulting in significant harm to the convict’s family or their property. The pursuit of legal recourse through the filing of a Special Leave Petition.
Purposes and Objectives of Parole in India The primary aim of parole within the Indian legal framework is the reintegration and rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals, emphasizing their overall improvement. As outlined in Rule 1(A) and 19 of the Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, parole serves the following objectives:
(a) Facilitating the inmate’s continuity with familial responsibilities and affairs, (b) Shielding individuals from the detrimental effects of prolonged incarceration, (c) Fostering the development and enhancement of self-confidence, (d) Cultivating a sense of constructive optimism and active engagement with life.
Moreover, as elucidated in the case of Budhi v. State of Rajasthan, parole fulfills three key functions:
- Acting as a catalyst for incarcerated individuals to embrace behavioral change.
- Safeguarding the integrity of prisoners’ familial ties, which may be at risk due to extended periods of confinement.
- Assisting offenders in the gradual transition and integration into society’s norms and expectations.
In the seminal case of Charanjit Lal vs. State of Delhi (1985), the court underscored:
- The multifaceted objectives of punishment, encompassing deterrence, prevention, retribution, and reformation.
- The necessity to periodically review the confinement of life-sentenced offenders, offering opportunities to address personal and familial issues while maintaining connections to society.
- The importance of providing respite to individuals through brief periods of release, contingent upon sustained good conduct and demonstrated willingness to reform and contribute positively to society.
- The imperative to prioritize the redemption and rehabilitation of inmates during their incarceration, with the overarching goal of societal benefit.
Criteria for Parole Eligibility
Although the procedures and regulations governing parole vary across different states, the 2010 Parole/Furlough Guidelines delineate specific conditions that must be satisfied to attain parole in India.
- The applicant must have served a minimum of one year of imprisonment, excluding any time spent in remission.
- The conduct of the prisoner must consistently demonstrate commendable behavior.
- The applicant must not have committed any offenses during prior parole periods, if granted.
- Adherence to all terms and restrictions imposed during previous releases is imperative.
- A minimum period of six months must have transpired since the conclusion of the previous parole term.
Analyzing the Merits and Demerits of the Parole System in India
Within the legal framework, the parole system in India is subject to scrutiny regarding its benefits and shortcomings. While its core objective revolves around offender rehabilitation and incentivizing behavioral improvements among prisoners, instances of system misuse prompt examination. Hence, a comprehensive exploration of both the advantages and disadvantages of the parole system is warranted.
Benefits of the Parole System
Parole serves to alleviate jail overcrowding by providing a mechanism for the temporary release of inmates, thus mitigating the strain on correctional facilities. Moreover, parole contributes to cost reduction for taxpayers, as the expenses associated with parole supervision are typically lower than those incurred during incarceration. Statistical analyses suggest that the expenditure on supervising parolees is significantly less compared to the costs of imprisonment, which can be up to tenfold higher. Furthermore, parole serves as a form of incentive for inmates who exhibit commendable conduct, fostering motivation for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Facilitating continued contact with families and communities, parole sustains vital social connections for prisoners, promoting familial stability and community ties. Additionally, parole, with its focus on rehabilitation and reform, offers a respite from the detrimental psychological effects of incarceration, thereby supporting the mental well-being of prisoners.
Drawbacks of the Parole System
Limitations of the Parole System While a prisoner’s adherence to institutional rules may suggest a propensity for law-abiding conduct, there exists no assurance of sustained compliance post-release. Foremost among the concerns associated with parole is the potential for recidivism, wherein released individuals may engage in further criminal behavior. Illustratively, in the legal precedent of Saibanna v State of Karnataka, an individual previously convicted of homicide subsequently committed additional violent offenses while on parole. Securing gainful employment presents a formidable challenge for parolees, given the pervasive stigma associated with their criminal histories. Consequently, parolees may confront difficulties addressing issues such as social isolation, homelessness, or unemployment, potentially leading to recidivist behavior. The misuse of parole represents a notable vulnerability within the system, inviting scrutiny and criticism. Instances such as that involving Gurmeet Ram Rahim underscore the importance of vigilance and oversight in mitigating abuse of the parole process.
Instances of Parole Abuse
While numerous cases demonstrate the beneficial impact of the parole system on prisoners, there exist instances that starkly highlight its misuse by certain individuals of privilege. Presented below are several examples illustrating the abuse of parole.
Jessica Lal Murder Case
In the notorious Jessica Lal murder case, Siddharth Vashist, also known as Manu Sharma, was granted parole by the Delhi government, despite significant objections from the Delhi police. His parole application sought a three-month release to conduct the funeral rites of his grandmother, attend to his ailing mother, and address familial business matters.
The Delhi police’s report highlighted discrepancies in Sharma’s parole request, noting the lack of timely justification for his grandmother’s passing, which had occurred in April. Furthermore, the report indicated that his mother’s health condition did not warrant urgent attention, and his absence did not adversely impact his business affairs.
Sharma faced allegations of violating parole conditions during a previous release in 2009, initially granted for one month and extended for an additional month to attend to his mother in Chandigarh. However, reports emerged of him attending a nightclub in Delhi while his mother was holding a press conference in the capital, contrary to the parole stipulation requiring his presence in Chandigarh.
The son of former Union Minister Venod Sharma, Manu Sharma, was initially acquitted by a trial court for Jessica Lal’s murder in 1999. However, the Delhi High Court later found him guilty in December 2006, sentencing him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2010.
In 2018, Sharma was transferred to an open prison facility, allowing him to work with a non-governmental organization outside the prison confines due to his commendable conduct. In open prison settings, inmates are permitted to leave the facility for work purposes but are restricted to designated locations and are prohibited from leaving the city or deviating from the prescribed itinerary.
The Case of Bibi Jagir Kaur
Bibi Jagir Kaur was sentenced to a five-year prison term for her involvement in her daughter’s murder.
Manu fatally shot Jessica after she declined to serve him alcohol at the Tamarind Court restaurant, situated at the Qutub Colonnade in south Delhi’s Mehrauli. Despite being incarcerated for only four months, she was granted parole, allegedly due to her status as a former cabinet minister of Punjab. Notably, she was the first woman to be elected twice as the leader of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee.
The Gurmeet Ram Rahim Case
The recent instance of parole misapplication involves Gurmeet Ram Rahim, the Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda. He was granted a 40-day parole from Sunaria jail in Rohtak starting October 15, 2022, following previous instances of parole for one month in June 2022 and a three-week furlough in February 2022. During these periods of release, he was observed conducting religious gatherings (satsangs), which were attended by various government officials.
Swati Maliwal, Chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women, communicated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, advocating for revisions in remission and parole regulations, particularly in light of the Gurmeet Ram Rahim case. She emphasized the necessity for stringent laws and guidelines governing the release of individuals convicted of sexual offenses, including stringent prerequisites prior to any parole consideration.
Swati’s correspondence underscored, “It has been observed that the convict has been granted multiple parole releases during his incarceration. On this occasion, while on parole, he conducted several ‘Pravachan Sabhas’ and released music videos to promote himself. Notably, several high-ranking officials from Haryana and Himachal Pradesh Governments, including the Deputy Speaker, Mayor (Haryana), and Transport Minister (Himachal Pradesh), attended his ‘Pravachan Sabhas’ and pledged their unwavering support.”
Gurmeet Ram Rahim is presently serving a 20-year prison sentence following his 2017 conviction for the rape of two disciples at his Sirsa ashram. Additionally, he was convicted of the murder of a journalist in 2019 and a manager of his Dera in 2021.
According to the notification issued on April 11, 2022, under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, convicted prisoners may be granted regular parole for a total of 10 weeks per calendar year, divided into two periods.
Procedure for Obtaining Parole in India
In accordance with the 2010 Parole/Furlough guidelines, an application for parole may be submitted directly by the convict or through a representative such as relatives, friends, or legal counsel to the superintendent of the correctional facility.
The parole application should contain the following details:
- Full name of the applicant
- Father’s name of the applicant
- Applicant’s address
- If submitted by a friend/relative/lawyer, the nature of the relationship with the convict
- Any known family details of the convict
- Last known address of the convict
- Reasons for seeking parole
Upon receipt of the application, the Superintendent of the correctional facility is responsible for recording the details in the parole register and conducting a face-to-face interview to verify the information provided. Subsequently, a report is forwarded to the divisional police station for a thorough investigation. In cases of medical emergencies, medical reports are scrutinized to authenticate the application.
Following the preliminary verification process, the application is forwarded to the competent authorities for approval. In certain states, the application is first routed to the Inspector General of Prisons and subsequently to the District Magistrate, who, in consultation with the State Government, determines whether to grant or deny the parole request.
Does Parole Constitute Part of the Sentence?
Parole constitutes a temporary suspension of the sentence while the original sentence duration remains unaffected. The Supreme Court has expressed varying interpretations in different cases regarding whether the time spent on parole should be included in the overall sentence calculation.
In the case of Smt. Poonam Lata v M.L. Wadhawan (1987), the Supreme Court emphasized that “the duration of release must be disregarded when computing the period of confinement.”
Conversely, in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court argued that temporary release does not alter the legal status of the individual since complete freedom and liberty have not been restored. Consequently, the time spent on temporary release on parole should not be subtracted from the maximum imprisonment period.
The Bombay High Court, in the cases of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur (2019) and Hariom Vijay Pande v. State of Maharashtra (2019), affirmed that parole constitutes a limited legal entitlement provided to offenders.
However, the Supreme Court, in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020), unequivocally stated that the grant of remission or release is not an inherent right conferred upon the prisoner. Instead, it is a privilege contingent upon the prisoner meeting specific criteria.
Under What Conditions Can Parole Be Denied to an Inmate?
Parole constitutes a vital component of the rehabilitative process, offering offenders an opportunity to reform their behavior and reintegrate into society as productive citizens. However, parole eligibility varies across states and is contingent upon administrative guidelines.
Parole may be denied to inmates under the following circumstances:
- In cases where the release of the convict on parole is deemed hazardous or poses a threat to national security, or where other reasonable grounds exist, such as an ongoing investigation into a serious criminal offense.
- In instances where prisoners have been implicated in crimes or offenses against the State, such as sedition, or have been found to incite severe breaches of prison discipline.
- For inmates who have escaped from detention facilities.
- In cases where the prisoner is not a citizen of India.
Parole is typically not granted in the aforementioned scenarios, unless exceptional circumstances warrant its consideration by the competent authority:
- If the prisoner has been convicted of murder subsequent to rape.
- If the prisoner has been convicted of murder and rape involving minors.
- If the prisoner has been convicted of multiple murders.
In Kesar Singh Guleria vs State of Himachal Pradesh (1984),
“Another important factor required to be borne in mind by the Releasing Authority is that the rules of procedure governing the temporary release on parole or furlough are intended to subserve and not to subrogate the substantive provisions. The various rules prescribing the procedure for temporary release must be viewed and implemented bearing in mind this salient principle. Though the forms of application (Form A-l and Form A-2) are prescribed, still no application which substantially complies with the requirement of the relevant form should be rejected, even if it does not strictly conform to the prescribed form. Besides, the District Magistrate, who is under a statutory duty to give an opinion whether the temporary release of a prisoner on parole or furlough is opposed on grounds of the prisoner’s presence being dangerous to the security of the State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, must bear in mind the clear distinction between the concepts of “security of the State”, “public order” and “law and order”. “Security of the State” would involve breaches of public tranquillity leading to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, etc. and cover any activity affecting the security of the State. The distinction between the concepts of “public order” and “law and order” has since been explained in Lall Chand’s case (1985 Cri LJ NOC (Him Pra) 46) (supra). “Public Order”, if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not the same as a disturbance which subverts public order. An apprehended breach of peace or the possibility of the prisoner committing a crime during the parole period, without anything more, would constitute a law and order problem and not a problem touching public order. It would thus appear that “public order” comprehends disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting “security of the State” and that “law and order” comprehends disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting “public order”. In cases involving problems of law and order, the proper course to be adopted is not to give an opinion that the request for release be rejected but to advise that the release be ordered subject to appropriate conditions, such as, that surveillance be kept over the prisoner during the period of his temporary release and that he be asked to report to the nearest police station at appropriate intervals. Indeed, in an appropriate case, the power conferred by R. 4 can be recommended to be exercised if an occasion, therefore, arises, having regard to the conduct of the prisoner who is temporarily released.”
Sanctions for Parole Abuse Under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Individuals who exceed the authorized duration of their parole or fail to return to prison within the designated timeframe are subject to imprisonment for a period of up to 2 years, a fine, or both. Additionally, in accordance with the 2010 guidelines, any accrued remissions will be revoked in instances of parole misuse.
Guidelines on Parole by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2020
The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued directives regarding parole, urging states to develop and implement effective behavioral therapy and counseling programs for inmates. This involves the engagement of psychologists and other specialists to facilitate the desired behavioral changes. Additionally, the Ministry has emphasized the need for states to review existing guidelines to ensure that facilities and concessions granted to inmates, such as parole, furlough, and premature release, intended for their relief and rehabilitation, are not exploited or misused to the detriment of society.
To address these concerns, the following provisions are recommended to be incorporated into parole, furlough, remission, and probation guidelines:
- Parole and furlough should be strictly limited for offenders whose release could pose a threat to state security or public safety.
- States are advised to reassess their parole regulations, including criteria, duration, and frequency, based on their experience to gauge the benefits and drawbacks of such measures.
- The grant of parole and furlough should not be routine; instead, a committee comprising officers and behavioral experts should be convened to decide on such matters, considering all relevant factors. This is particularly crucial for inmates convicted of serious offenses such as sexual crimes, murder, child abduction, and violence.
- It is recommended to include an expert psychologist, criminologist, or correctional administration expert as a member of the Sentence Review Board and the committee responsible for parole and furlough decisions. Their insights should be sought before any temporary release is granted.
Is Parole Considered a Privilege?
According to the Model Prison Manual of 2016, the opportunity for parole and furlough release should be extended to certain prisoners based on clearly defined eligibility criteria and appropriateness. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2020 guidelines emphasize that parole is not an inherent entitlement but rather a concession granted under specific circumstances.
Parole is not deemed an absolute entitlement but holds significant administrative significance. Prison authorities wield discretionary powers to grant parole to prisoners, typically in consultation with the state government. The European Court of Human Rights, with its extensive jurisprudence on parole matters, deems life sentences without the possibility of parole as incompatible with human dignity. Moreover, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights advocates for legal reforms to permit the availability of parole within state laws.
In the Ashfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017), Supreme Court noted,
“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. n that eventuality, 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.”
In the legal matter of Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan (2012), adjudicated by the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, a meticulous examination of the Superintendent of Police’s report revealed its inherent ambiguity and lack of precision. The court underscored the fundamental objective of parole, which is to facilitate the reintegration of convict-prisoners into mainstream society. While recognizing the imperative of authorities to uphold law and order and prevent disturbances, the court emphasized that parole should not be arbitrarily denied to eligible and entitled petitioners.
Similarly, the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (1984), articulated that while prisoners do not inherently possess a legal entitlement to furlough, the principles governing furlough are universally applicable to all prisoners. Hence, the court held that the grant of furlough to one prisoner must not be arbitrarily withheld from another, as such action would amount to unjust favoritism.
Moreover, in the legal proceeding of Mohd. Sabir v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2021), heard by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was recognized that parole constitutes a privilege extended by the state to prisoners. Nevertheless, the court asserted that parole should not be arbitrarily curtailed based on vague or unfounded reasons. It emphasized the principle that parole cannot be arbitrarily revoked without valid grounds.
In conclusion, we trust that this article provides comprehensive insights into the intricacies of parole. It aims to serve as a comprehensive resource regarding parole laws in India. It is important to note that parole regulations vary across different states, with each state implementing its unique set of guidelines governing parole, furlough, sentence remission, and probation.