What Is Parole?
Parole refers to the type of conditional freedom that is exercised by prisoners. In its conventional sense, it is a privilege for the prisoner who is deemed to be fit to re-interact with society. Historically, parole comes out of military law and denotes the release of a prisoner of war on a promise to return. Parole has become an integral part of the English and American systems of criminal justice intertwined with the evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards crime and criminals. Parole and furlough ought not to be mingled with each other. In the case of Bhikabhai v. State of Gujarat, “Furlough and parole have two different purposes. Furlough is a matter of right parole is not so…Parole is to be granted only on sufficient cause such as cases of severe illness or death of any member of the prisoner’s family.”
To be eligible for parole, the prisoner needs to appear for a parole hearing. If the authorities find him unsuitable, then his parole is canceled and he is made to appear in the next hearing, which is generally scheduled for years later. The necessary condition that needs to be taken into consideration at the time of granting parole is the behavior of the prisoner at the time of release. Only if it is suitable for society is he then eligible. Consequently, if the State Committee/District Committee accepts the recommendation of the District Magistrate, the prisoner shall be released on parole.
A prisoner on parole needs to abide by certain conditions to enjoy freedom, such as avoiding any contacts with criminals and engagement in criminal activity, refraining from alcohol and drug use, getting engaged in one’s employment, and not leaving their place of residence unless asked to do so. While giving parole, the authorities look for various factors such as the crime committed, past criminal record, improvement in behavior, and living conditions in the prison. Hence, this process requires scrutiny before passing a final order of parole.
Why Should Parole Be Considered a Right?
Parole has been an administrative decision. Once a prisoner applies and pleads for it, it is the decision of the executive authority of that prison. It is their prerogative to decide. In this way, eligible prisoners sometimes arbitrarily lose the chance to benefit. It is open to judicial review and interpretations vary from case to case. All criminal justice falls under Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Indian Constitution. The prisoner has the right to reach the court under Article 32 and 226 to seek remedy for executive arbitrariness. The “Head of the Prisons Department/Inspector General of Prisons will be the competent authority for granting release on leave.”
Special leave may be granted to a prisoner in special situations: for death or serious illness of a close relative, and for the marriage of a sibling or child. Such leave will be given after verifying the facts of the case by contacting the police by the quickest mode of communication available. Such leave can be for a maximum period of 14 days, excluding the journey time. The period spent on leave will be counted as sentence served, while that spent on special leave will not count as such. The period spent on special leave will be treated as “out days.”
The concern is whether authorizing parole as a right with reasonable restrictions provides a more confident and promising execution of it. There are certain manuals that govern the rights of the prisoners and the rules for the prison authorities. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Prisons (Bombay Amendment) Act, the Jail Reforms Committee had recommended, and the government accepted, the recommendation that:
There should be the system of release of prisoners on furlough under which well-behaved prisoners of certain categories should, as a matter of right have a spell of freedom occasionally after they undergo a specified period of imprisonment so that they may maintain contact with their near relatives and friends and may not feel uprooted from society.
There are various international conventions and organizations which consider parole a right for the prisoners. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has developed rich jurisprudence related to the issue of release on parole, as some judges believe that an irreducible life sentence (life sentence without the prospect of release) would violate the principle of human dignity. The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights has also recommended some state parties amend their laws to provide for parole.
In the case of Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors, the court said that “[r]elease on parole is a wing of the reformative process and is expected to provide an opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen.” Further, in the case of Inder Singh & Anr v. The State, it is evident that the purpose of parole is to rehabilitate prisoners and make them more confident in their social lives. The objectives of parole discussed in the case are, “(1) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters (2) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life, and (3) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life.”
Parole as a right would have different impacts on different sections of society:
Prisoner: Man is a social animal. Mental ideology plays a vital role in a person’s behavior and thought process. The same goes for a prisoner. Social integration is part of a person’s life. A sense of belongingness in society is important and thus, parole as a right will lead to mental strength and behavioral changes for good.
Society: Positive interaction with a prisoner upon release with the society and young people may bring awareness to crime prevention and brutal torture in prisons.
Government: Parole not only creates a sense of belongingness but also helps the government reduce costs. Parole reduces prison overcrowding, granting offenders who are considered unlikely to harm others the benefit of supervised life in society. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, it costs nearly eighty dollars a day to house an inmate in federal prison, but about nine dollars a day to supervise them in a community setting. Hence, granting parole acts as a cost-effective measure.
Family of the Convicted: Many families today only have income from one family member. If the prisoner is released on parole then he may make economic contributions to his family. If a person is convicted and was the sole wage-earner of the family then the economic dependence of the family becomes a cause of concern when the income is lost after imprisonment.
Reasonable restrictions must be imposed, as in the case of Subhash Hiralal Bhosale v. Prison Pune, where the offender committed a crime while on parole and was sent back to prison.
In a conversation with a staff member of Central Jail Prison, Patiala, it appears that the execution of parole is still unambiguous. When one prisoner is granted parole and violates it, the rest of the prisoners are arbitrarily denied parole afterward. It is similar to taking a toy away from all children if one child has misused it. The rules and the manuals say that it is the District Magistrate who has the final authority to decide whether a prisoner is eligible for parole or not.
Conclusion
We have discussed what parole is and how it works. Every coin has two sides and, similarly, parole has both negative and positive aspects. Parole augments the primary objective of prisons that is to make the convicts realize their fallacies and provide them with a platform to reform themselves and re-join the society as better citizens. Laws must be enacted in order to provide and protect the right to life of prisoners. Thus far, we have talked only about the reforms in the prison, but next, we must talk about reformation in the life of prisoners. Prisons are meant to transform prisoners, and thus it is necessary that they interact with the outside world. Now India must recognize prisoners as part of the society and make certain provisions to improve their standard of living.
Akshat Jaithlia and Vaibhav Gogra are first-year law students at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
Suggested Citation: Akshat Jaithlia and Vaibhav Gogra, Parole as a Right, JURIST – Student Commentary, May 2, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/05/jaithlia-gogra-parole-right/.
This article was prepared for publication by Gabrielle Wast, Assistant Editor for JURIST Commentary. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org
