The Bombay high court has asked the government of Maharashtra to reply to PIL challenging a notification issued by the government last year that allows the furlough and parole periods to be counted as remission of sentence.
Social activist Rajan Parkar through advocate N Gavankar has filed public interest litigation challenging the notification claiming that the decision of counting furlough and parole (period when an accused is allowed to visit his home during his imprisonment) is contrary to Rules 16 and 20 of Prisons Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules.
The petitioner has further contended that by amending rules the deputy secretary Home Department has amended Rules framed by the Legislature, which is not permissible.
The petitioner has also contended that if period of parole and extended period of furlough coupled with remission of good behaviour is counted as time spent in prison than the very purpose of sending a convict behind bars is defeated and hence the court should quash and set aside the decision.
According to advocate Gavankar the petitioner, who is also working for children of victims of crimes, is of the opinion that some relief is necessary to encourage prisoners to come out of jail and spend life of a responsible citizen. However, according to him it is experienced that most of the poor prisoners do not get this facility.
The petitioner has claimed that the rich people manage to get police report that allows them to get parole and furlough while the poor inmates spent maximum time in prison and do the work, which is unfair to them.
Advocate Gavankar claimed that if a convict is granted parole of 90 days and furlough of 14 days which can be extended upto 24 days and further remission of good conduct is granted to him then actual period spent behind bars gets too less.
The division bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka has directed the government to file reply on the petition and posted this matter for further hearing on July 7.
