Furlough is not a Right but a concession: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that furlough is not a matter of right but a discretionary concession, which can be denied in the rarest of rare cases. The Court explained that both parole and furlough envisage short-term temporary release from custody, but they serve different purposes. While parole is granted to address a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years of imprisonment have been served, even without a specific reason, in accordance with the relevant policy.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while hearing a plea seeking furlough for a “hardcore prisoner” convicted of life imprisonment in a murder case, emphasized that parole and furlough are designed to humanize prison administration but differ in nature and application. The Court clarified that, for the sake of societal security, furlough can be rejected in exceptional cases.

The Court further elaborated that furlough is not a guaranteed benefit but a discretionary relief subject to conditions, circumstances, and the judgment of the competent authority. It observed: “Man is essentially a fighting creature, and thus, to think of a crimeless society is meaningless. There cannot be a society without crimes, and laws serve as guidelines to regulate human conduct. Misconduct is punishable under the rule of law, and therefore, the institution of prison is indispensable for maintaining law, order, peace, and security in any country.”

The observations came while deciding a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022. The petitioner, serving a life sentence for murder, had challenged the rejection of his request for four weeks of furlough, claiming that the denial was arbitrary. His appeal against conviction had already been dismissed by the High Court in 2012.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the petitioner had been convicted of murder committed with the intention of ransom collection, and therefore, under Section 4(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, he was not entitled to furlough. It was also pointed out that the prisoner had already availed parole or furlough on 16 occasions under the earlier law.

After examining the provisions, the Court held that Section 3(4) of the 2022 Act makes it abundantly clear that a life convict in such circumstances is ineligible for furlough. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that no prisoner has a vested right to temporary release on parole or furlough, as these are concessions subject to fulfillment of statutory conditions.

Considering the petitioner’s status as a hardcore prisoner and his ineligibility under the statute, the Court concluded that he could not be granted furlough.