MUMBAI: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has raised concerns over a rule that bars furlough for prisoners convicted under certain special laws, questioning its constitutional validity and referring the issue to a larger bench.
Justices Anil L Pansare and Nivedita P Mehta said Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Parole and Furlough Leaves) Rules, 2024, which denies furlough to convicts under laws like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, may violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
The court, however, did not strike down the rule, noting that two earlier benches had upheld similar provisions. It instead asked for the constitution of a larger bench to re-examine the issue.
The observations came while hearing a plea by Rohit Thangappan Joseph alias Satish Kalia, convicted in journalist Jyotirmay Dey murder case, including under sections of MCOCA.
He had approached the high court last year after his plea, filed last year, for 28-day furlough leave was rejected by the superintendent of Amravati Central Jail where he has been lodged.
His plea was rejected on the ground that under the new rules, which came into force in December 2024, he was not entitled to furlough leave as an MCOCA convict.
His lawyer, advocate NB Raut, contended that Joseph had previously been released on furlough four times without any violation and had maintained good conduct in jail. He argued that the blanket ban defeats the reformative purpose of furlough and infringes fundamental rights.
Opposing the plea, advocate general Dr Milind Sathe, representing the state, said the issue had already been settled in earlier cases, including those of Pundalik Gole (2018) and Santosh Bhukan (2016).
The bench, however, said a blanket restriction based only on the nature of the offence could undermine the objectives of furlough, such as maintaining family ties, easing the impact of incarceration, and encouraging reform.
“While it is true that furlough is a conditional privilege that may be legitimately restricted, imposing a blanket restriction based solely on the nature of a specific offence would undermine the very objectives for which furlough is granted,” the bench said.
It also noted that such a rule could unfairly affect those with minor roles in organised crime cases or those in consensual relationships and convicted under the POCSO Act.
Saying that treating all such convicts as permanently hardened criminals ignores the scope for reform, the court held that these aspects require deeper consideration and requested the chief justice to constitute a larger bench to reconsider the matter.
