Bombay High Court Strikes Down One-Year Jail Requirement For Prisoners Seeking Parole

The Bombay High Court has declared unconstitutional the rule requiring convicted prisoners to complete one year of actual imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole under the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024.

A Division Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar and Justice Pravin S. Patil held that the restriction violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and defeated the very purpose of parole, which exists to address urgent family and humanitarian situations.

The case was filed by a convict lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison who had been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His parole application was not considered because he had not completed one year in prison as required under Rule 14(1).

The High Court observed that parole is a limited legal right and cannot be administered in an arbitrary manner. The Bench noted that parole is granted for reasons such as serious illness of relatives, marriages, childbirth, deaths in the family, or natural calamities, and denying parole solely because one year had not passed had no reasonable connection with these objectives.

Relying on earlier judgments of both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the Court stressed that parole and furlough are based on a humanistic and reformative approach towards prisoners.

Accordingly, the Court struck down the phrase requiring “completion of one year of actual imprisonment” from Rule 14(1) and directed authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s parole application in accordance with law.