Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Furlough for Convict Citing Public Safety Concerns: State of Gujarat vs. Narayan Sai (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 718
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J and B.V. Nagarathna, J
Can a convict, despite having served the required minimum sentence, be denied furlough if authorities believe it poses a threat to public safety? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, ultimately ruling that the safety and security of the public outweigh an individual’s claim to furlough. This judgment clarifies the discretionary nature of furlough and reinforces the importance of maintaining law and order. The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the unanimous verdict.

Case Background

The case revolves around Narayan Sai, who was convicted by the Sessions Court on 30 April 2019 for multiple offenses, including rape and unnatural offenses under Sections 376(2), 377, 354, 504, 506(2), 508 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with fines and additional rigorous imprisonment terms. Following his conviction, Sai applied for furlough, a form of temporary release, which was denied by the Director General of Police (DGP) on 8 May 2021. The DGP cited concerns about public safety and potential disruptions to the judicial process, given Sai’s history of criminal activities and the threat he posed to witnesses and public officials.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Narayan Sai’s application for furlough was initially rejected by the Director General of Police (DGP), Jail and Reformative Administration, on 8 May 2021. The DGP’s decision was based on a negative opinion from the Jail Superintendent, who reported Sai’s illegal activities within the jail, and objections from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), citing potential threats to public safety and the judicial process. Sai challenged this rejection before the High Court of Gujarat, which overturned the DGP’s order and directed his release on furlough. The High Court reasoned that the grounds for denial had been previously considered and that Sai had not misused his previous release on furlough. The State of Gujarat then appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Prisons Act 1894 and the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959, which are applicable in the State of Gujarat. The relevant rules are:

• Rule 3 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules:

  This rule outlines the eligibility criteria for furlough. It states that a prisoner sentenced to more than five years, including life imprisonment, may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after completing seven years of actual imprisonment. The rule uses the term “may be released” indicating that it is not an absolute right.

  “3. When Prisoner may be granted furlough. (1) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year of actual imprisonment undergone. (2) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding five years may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every two years of actual imprisonment undergone: Provided that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years but not to imprisonment for life may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years during the last five years of his unexpired period of sentence: Provided further that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after he completes seven years actual imprisonment.”

• Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules:

  This rule lists the categories of prisoners who are not eligible for furlough. Specifically, Rule 4(4) states that prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate on grounds of public peace and tranquility are not eligible. Rule 4(6) states that prisoners whose conduct is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison are not eligible. Rule 4(10) states that prisoners who have escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole on furlough are not eligible.

  “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 offenses under sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code. (3) Prisoners convicted of offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Great Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and elsewhere, the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility. (5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the prison show a tendency towards crime. (6) Prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough. (7) Prisoners confined in the Ratnagiri Special Prison [other than prisoners transferred to that prison for jail services.] (8) Prisoners convicted of offences of violence against person or property committed for political motives, unless the prior consent of the State Government to such release is obtained. (9) A prisoner or class of prisoners in whose case the State Government has directed that the prisoner shall not be released or that the case should be referred to it for orders. (10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole on furlough. (11) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.”

• Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules:

  This rule explicitly states that the rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.

  “Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.”

These rules are framed under Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, which empowers the State Government to make rules for the award of marks and shortening of sentences, and for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the conflict between an individual’s right to furlough and the state’s responsibility to maintain public safety.

Submissions by the State of Gujarat (Appellants)

• The State argued that furlough is not an absolute right but a discretionary remedy subject to the conditions in the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules. They emphasized that Rule 3 provides an option for release, which is subject to Rule 4.
• The State highlighted that Rules 4(4), 4(6), and 4(10) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules restrict the grant of furlough for prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate due to public peace concerns, prisoners with unsatisfactory conduct, and those who have escaped or defaulted in surrendering.
• The State contended that Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules explicitly states that the rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim furlough.
• The State cited State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [(2006) 4 SCC 776], arguing that furlough can be refused if there are concerns about public peace and tranquility.
• The State relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 15 SCC 55], stating that furlough can be denied if it is not in the interest of society.
• The State detailed the serious nature of the crimes committed by the respondent and his criminal misconduct, which included attempts to bribe public officials, threats and assaults on witnesses, and attempts to derail the judicial process.
• The State argued that the High Court’s reliance on its previous order was misplaced, as that order did not address the objections to the denial of furlough.
• The State pointed out that the respondent had already been granted furlough in December 2020 and interim bail in January 2021 and therefore, should not be granted furlough again in July 2021.

Submissions by Narayan Sai (Respondent)

• The respondent argued that his father was critically ill and he was the only son to care for him.
• The respondent highlighted that his appeal against conviction and application for suspension of sentence were still pending before the High Court.
• The respondent emphasized that he had been released on temporary bail and furlough on four occasions without any untoward incidents.
• The respondent claimed that furlough is a matter of right for prisoners to maintain family ties.
• The respondent stated that he was an accused in two other criminal cases and had been granted bail in both.
• The respondent argued that he was not associated with the attacks on witnesses and his name was not mentioned in the FIRs.
• The respondent claimed that the infractions cited by the Superintendent of Prison were minor and did not relate to his behaviour once released on furlough.
• The respondent distinguished furlough from parole, stating that furlough is granted after a specified period of sentence, while parole is a conditional release for a specific reason.
• The respondent argued that Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules should be interpreted to mean that a prisoner should be released on furlough every calendar year.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was whether the High Court was correct in directing the release of the respondent on furlough, despite the objections raised by the authorities based on public safety concerns. The sub-issues that the court dealt with under the core issue:

• Whether the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules confer an absolute right to furlough to a prisoner?
• Whether the reasons given by the DGP for denying furlough were valid and justified?
• Whether the High Court was correct in relying on its previous order to grant furlough?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to reach its decision:

Cases

• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [(2006) 4 SCC 776], Supreme Court of India:

  This case was cited to emphasize that furlough is not an absolute right and can be refused if there are concerns about public peace and tranquility. The Court in this case had distinguished parole from furlough, stating that furlough is allowed periodically irrespective of any particular reason, while parole is granted for a specific purpose.

• Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 15 SCC 55], Supreme Court of India:

  This case was relied upon to highlight that furlough can be denied if it is not in the interest of society. The Court in this case had differentiated between parole and furlough, noting that furlough is a good conduct remission and can be denied in the interest of society.

• State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 394], Supreme Court of India:

  This case was cited to distinguish between parole and furlough, noting that the period of release on furlough counts towards the total sentence, unlike parole.

Legal Provisions

• Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894:

  This section empowers the State Government to make rules for the award of marks and shortening of sentences, and for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules are framed under this section.

• Rule 3 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959:

  This rule provides the eligibility criteria for grant of furlough for prisoners serving different lengths of imprisonment.

• Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959:

  This rule specifies the conditions under which furlough shall not be granted.

• Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959:

  This rule clarifies that the rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to support its reasoning for resolving the issue.

• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [(2006) 4 SCC 776]*: The Court cited this case to establish that furlough is not an absolute right and can be denied in the interest of public peace and tranquility.
• Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 15 SCC 55]*: The Court used this case to support its view that furlough can be denied if it is not in the interest of society.
• State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 394]*: The Court referred to this case to distinguish between parole and furlough, emphasizing the different purposes and implications of each.
• The Court used Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894 to establish the legal basis for the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules.
• The Court used Rule 3 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 to discuss the eligibility criteria for furlough.
• The Court used Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 to discuss the conditions under which furlough can be denied.
• The Court used Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 to emphasize that the rules do not confer a legal right to claim furlough.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the rights of the convict with the safety and security of society. The Court emphasized that while furlough is intended to help prisoners maintain family ties and reintegrate into society, it is not an absolute right and can be denied when public safety concerns exist. The Court noted that the respondent had engaged in criminal misconduct, including attempting to bribe public officials, threatening witnesses, and engaging in illegal activities while in custody. The Court also considered the potential threat posed by the respondent’s followers and the possibility of disruption to the judicial process.

Sentiment Analysis

The sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning reveals a strong emphasis on public safety and the integrity of the judicial process. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the potential risks associated with granting furlough to the respondent, given his past actions and the threat he posed to witnesses and public officials.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the rules and the arguments presented by the respondent but ultimately rejected them in favor of upholding public safety. The Court emphasized that the discretionary power to grant furlough must be exercised judiciously, balancing the rights of the individual with the interests of society.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules do not confer an absolute right to furlough.
• The DGP’s order denying furlough was based on valid reasons, including the gravity of the offenses, the respondent’s criminal misconduct, and public safety concerns.
• The High Court’s reliance on its previous order was misplaced, as that order did not address the specific objections raised by the authorities.
• The respondent’s conduct in jail was unsatisfactory.
• The respondent’s release on furlough could lead to a disruption of public peace and the judicial process.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.”
• “The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.”
• “The opinion of the Sanctioning Authority under the Rules does not suffer from perversity nor does it consider material extraneous to the Rules governing the grant of furlough.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the safety and security of the public are paramount and that the discretionary power to grant furlough must be exercised judiciously, balancing the rights of the individual with the interests of society. The judgment also clarifies that furlough is not an absolute right and can be denied when there are valid concerns about public safety and the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Gujarat vs. Narayan Sai* (2021) serves as a significant precedent regarding the discretionary nature of furlough and the paramount importance of public safety. The Court’s ruling clarifies that furlough is not an absolute right and can be denied when authorities have valid concerns about the potential threat a prisoner poses to society. This case underscores the need for a balanced approach, weighing individual rights against the broader interests of public order and the integrity of the judicial system. It also highlights the importance of a thorough and reasoned decision-making process by authorities when considering furlough applications.