The Bombay High Court has referred an important legal question to a larger bench to decide whether the state can deny furlough to prisoners convicted under special laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), reported PTI.
The court also observed that such blanket restrictions may violate fundamental rights and go against the reformative purpose of prison laws.
The order was passed on April 10 by the Nagpur bench of Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta on a petition filed by Rohit Tangappa Joseph, an aide of gangster Chhota Rajan, who is convicted in the killing of journalist J Dey.
Joseph approached the court after prison authorities in Amravati rejected his furlough request. Authorities had relied on a December 2024 amendment to prison rules that imposed a blanket ban on furlough for prisoners convicted under certain special laws or serious offences.
State rule under scrutiny
The Maharashtra government had amended the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules to restrict furlough for inmates convicted under laws like MCOCA, POCSO and other serious offences.
Joseph, who is serving life imprisonment, had sought 28 days of furlough to meet his family due to an emergency.
Is the blanket ban fair?
The bench noted that denying furlough only on the basis of the offence may defeat the purpose of the system. It observed that furlough is meant to help prisoners maintain family ties and adjust better to life.
The court said, “The objective of furlough is to enable prisoners to remain in touch with their families and deal with family matters, to provide relief from the detrimental impact of continuous captivity in prison and to enable prisoners to remain hopeful about their future and have an active interest in life,” as per PTI.
It further added that assuming prisoners convicted under special laws do not need such relief may not be justified.
The judges also pointed out that restricting furlough purely based on the law under which a person is convicted could violate fundamental rights and contradict the reformative approach of the justice system.
Equality and reformative justice
The court observed that in organised crime cases, individuals may play different roles, and treating all convicts equally for furlough eligibility may be unfair. It said this creates “a class within a class,” which may not be justified.
It also remarked, “We do not find any rational as to why should prisoners, irrespective of the fact that they are convicted under a particular Act, be not permitted to remain in touch with their families, and/or remain hopeful about their life and future,” a per the news agency.
The division bench noted conflicting earlier judgments on the issue and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench to settle the legal question.
What is the case all about?
Joseph was convicted of murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and provisions of MCOCA. He is among eight others, including Chhota Rajan, convicted in the case related to the killing of journalist J Dey in Mumbai’s Powai area on June 11, 2011.
According to prosecution, Rajan ordered the killing after being unhappy with Dey’s writings.
(With PTI Inputs)
