Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed a significant issue concerning the humanistic approach towards parole for convicts. The case titled Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. involved a life convict, Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav, seeking parole to meet his son, who was about to leave for Australia to pursue higher education. The Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande explored the existing provisions of parole and furlough, emphasizing the need to extend these benefits not only in moments of grief but also in moments of joy and family celebration.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav, the petitioner, has been incarcerated for almost nine years. His plea was driven by a personal family matter – his son had secured admission to the Master of Data Science Program at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, commencing on July 22, 2024. Shrivastav sought a temporary release for 10 days to bid farewell to his son and arrange financial resources for his education. He argued that his presence was crucial for both emotional support and logistical arrangements, including raising approximately Rs 36 lakhs for tuition and travel expenses.

Shrivastav’s counsel highlighted the provisions under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, arguing that these rules intended to maintain continuity in family life and mitigate the psychological impact of prolonged incarceration. They contended that if parole could be granted for grief-related circumstances, it should equally be available for significant positive events in a convict’s family life.

The State of Maharashtra, represented by the Jail Authorities in Silvasa, opposed the plea. They maintained that the existing rules did not explicitly provide for parole on the grounds presented by Shrivastav. The authorities argued that parole was traditionally granted for emergencies, such as the death of a family member or serious illness, and special occasions like weddings. They insisted that extending parole for an event like a family member’s overseas travel did not fall within the prescribed circumstances under the rules.

The respondents further argued that granting parole for such reasons could set a precedent, leading to a flood of similar requests, potentially complicating the management of parole and furlough leaves within the prison system.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande delivered a landmark judgment, emphasizing the humanistic approach embedded within the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The Court noted that the object of these rules was to facilitate temporary release to maintain family bonds and address family matters, thus preserving the inmate’s mental health and hope for the future.

The Bench observed that while the rules explicitly mentioned emergencies and special occasions, they should not be rigidly interpreted to exclude significant positive events. The Court stated, “Grief is an emotion, so is happiness. If parole can be granted to share grief, why not to share a happy occasion or moment?” The judges highlighted that parole aimed to foster the convict’s faith in the system and encourage a connection with their loved ones, which ultimately supports their reintegration into society.

In its ruling, the Court criticized the rigid interpretation by the Jail Authorities, which had refused Shrivastav’s parole request. The Bench asserted that such an interpretation contradicted the fundamental objectives of the parole rules. It emphasized that a convict’s temporary release for a significant family event, such as a child’s departure for higher studies, aligns with the compassionate intent of the law.

Consequently, the Court ordered Shrivastav’s release on parole for 10 days, enabling him to be present for his son’s departure and to make necessary financial arrangements. This decision underscored the judiciary’s commitment to a humane approach in the application of parole rules, recognizing the importance of both emotional and logistical support for convicts in maintaining family relationships.