The Supreme Court has discussed the differences between the 'parole' and 'furlough' and the principles relating to grant of them.
In the case of State of Gujarat vs Narayan Sai (LL 2021 SC 577), a bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna stated the broad principles as:
(i) Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody;
(ii) While parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason;
(iii) The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society;
(iv) Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough;
(v) The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.
Referring to various precedents, the bench also observed that balance needs to be maintained between two competing interests while granting parole or furlough- that of reforming the convict on one hand and the public purpose and interests of society on the other:
'The bench was deciding an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which granted two weeks' furlough to self-proclaimed godman and rape convict Asaram's son Narayan Sai who is also serving a life term in a 2014 rape case. The convict had approached the High Court after the DGP rejected his application for furlough.'