Bombay High Court Strikes Down Rule Mandating One-Year Imprisonment For Regular Parole, Calls It Arbitrary & Unconstitutional

The Bombay High Court has struck down the portion of Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which mandated that a prisoner could become eligible for regular parole only after completion of one year of actual imprisonment. The Court held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench of Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by a convict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, who had sought parole leave. However, prison authorities refused to process his application on the ground that Rule 14 of the 2024 Rules required completion of one year of actual imprisonment before a prisoner could seek regular parole.

The Court examined Rules 12, 13 and 14 of the 2024 Rules. It noted that parole could be granted to enable prisoners to deal with the serious illness of a spouse or blood relatives, attend childbirth, manage consequences of natural calamities, or attend marriages of children or siblings. Emergency parole could also be granted for attending the funeral rites of close relatives.

The Bench observed that the one-year imprisonment condition had no nexus with the grounds or objectives for the grant of parole. It held that if a prisoner's spouse or close relative suffered a serious illness, or a natural calamity damaged the prisoner's home, there was no rational basis to deny consideration of parole merely because the prisoner had not completed one year in prison.

Relying extensively on the Larger Bench judgment in Kantilal Nadlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner [(2020) 4 RCR (Cri) 426], the Court reiterated that parole is not merely an administrative concession but a limited legal right available to prisoners subject to statutory conditions. The Court noted that the Larger Bench had previously struck down a similar restriction under the 1959 parole rules on the ground that it was manifestly arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 21.

The Court observed that the parole framework is based on a humanistic approach intended to help prisoners maintain family ties and reintegrate into society. The Bench noted that parole and furlough provisions are meant to enable prisoners to solve personal and family problems and preserve social links.

The Bench held that the impugned condition operated arbitrarily and defeated the very purpose of parole. It observed that prisoners retain constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 even while incarcerated, and the State cannot impose irrational restrictions while administering parole policy.

“… the prohibition of one year of actual imprisonment provided in Rule 14 of the Rules of 2024 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is ultra vires the grounds/objectives stated in Rule 14 of the Rules of 2024,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court declared the phrase “on completion of one year of actual imprisonment” occurring in Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, as unconstitutional and struck it down.

Case Title: Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 280 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

Click Here To Read/Download Order