Exhibition of freedom on parole deplorable

Apetition seeking the cancellation of 40-day regular parole granted to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is alleged that the respondent (Ram Rahim) is conducting online ‘satsangs’ with his followers and also released a music video on YouTube. It is argued that such conduct of the respondent is a threat to peace and tranquility in Punjab.

Advertisement

Temporary release of prisoners from jail for a short period, popularly known as parole, is a correctional device which seeks to harmonise prison justice. The Indian Jail Committee (1920) observed that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders should be the ultimate objective of the prison administration. Even the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955, prescribe temporary release of prisoners on parole to minimise the ill effects of incarceration.

Correctional justice experts subscribe to the philosophy that no contact with the outside world drags a prisoner into solitude, which can turn him into an ‘anti-social’ personality, defeating the very purpose of incarceration. They, too, prescribe that prisoners should be facilitated to come out of prison on parole for short durations of time at regular intervals.

The Prisons Act, 1894, and rules made thereunder as well as the Model Prison Manual-2016 recommend parole for convicts to enable them to maintain continuity with family life and deal with familial and social matters, save prisoners from the evil effects of prolonged prison life and help them retain self-confidence and an active interest in life.

The need to giving parole to long-term prisoners for reasonable spells, subject to sufficient safeguard ensuring their proper behaviour outside and prompt return to jail, has been repeatedly highlighted by the Supreme Court, especially in the Hiralal Mallick vs State of Bihar (1977) and Dharamvir vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) cases.

Though the right to parole is well established in law and practice, it is not an absolute right and is subject to the persistent good conduct of the prisoner in jail and reasonable restrictions. The eligibility criteria for release on parole are well laid down in laws and regulations. Convicted foreigners, prisoners, whose release is considered a threat to peace, tranquility and security of the state, and mentally ill inmates are denied the privilege of parole. It is, however, stated that courts are liberal in granting parole to eligible convicts, except those who are a threat to the state.

Since ‘prisons and persons detained therein’ is a subject matter of List-II, the state list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, every state has formulated its policy on parole. In Haryana, parole is governed by the provisions contained in the ‘Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act-2022’. This law was enacted afresh on April 11 and the old Act of 1988 on the subject was repealed. As per the extant law, a convict is eligible for parole if he/she has served at least one year of his/her sentence in jail after conviction, except the ‘hardcore convicts’, who are required to undergo a minimum of five years of sentence in order to qualify for release on parole.

Male convicts of the age of 75 years and above and female prisoners of the age of 65 years and above become eligible for parole immediately after conviction. Prisoners under capital punishment and those serving a sentence of life imprisonment till natural life are not eligible for parole. Regular parole can be availed of by a convict twice in a calendar year for a total period of 10 weeks. Additionally, a good conduct prisoner can also seek furlough for four weeks in the same calendar year, after having served three years in jail.

Under the provisions of the repealed law, ‘parole for a purpose’ was the rule and a convict seeking parole was required to justify his request for temporary release by citing a lawful purpose. The list of all such lawful purposes along with the prescribed duration of parole was given in the Act. This requirement has been done away with in the new law. Resultantly, a parolee can undertake all lawful activities during his/her release period, without any restrictions and questions asked by the state authorities. This is, perhaps, the lacuna in the law which the dera chief is exploiting to his advantage.

A scrutiny of the instant parole case of Ram Rahim would reveal that, as such, it does not suffer any illegality or infirmity. Though he falls in the category of ‘hardcore prisoners’, he is eligible for parole, having already spent more than five years in jail under the prescribed conditions for parole. Therefore, the controversy around his parole would revolve only around questions of honouring public sentiment, general perception about threat to peace and tranquility, wounded feelings of the victims of crime, morality in public administration and the vires of the new parole law, in which the concept of the ‘purpose-oriented parole’ has been discarded.

There cannot be two opinions in that parole is an essential element of modern correctional jurisprudence. At the same time, a moral and ethical duty is cast upon the parolee as well on the state to ensure that correctional justice does not become a matter of public ridicule. The Constitution guarantees freedom of faith and belief to every citizen, hence, the right of the followers to adore and admire their priest is sacrosanct. However, to an ordinary man of prudence it is debatable whether public preaching by a parolee is outrageous and preventable.

Glorification of a convict in any form is deplorable and public exhibition of freedom on parole is equally undesirable and condemnable. The state is expected to take an appropriate call to carve out a niche to accommodate popular public sentiment and should not be seen taking refuge under laws as and when deemed convenient.