BABASAHEB BAPU GAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above bunch of petitions involve common questions of law and facts and are therefore being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In above petitions, the petitioners who are prisoners, had preferred applications for furlough leave. However, their applications were essentially rejected on the ground that the petitioners being convicted of the offences under sections 392 to 402 of Indian Penal Code, they were not entitled to be granted furlough under Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1958. The petitioners are challenging the Constitutional validity of Rule 4(2) as also Rule 17, which lays down that the prisoner does not have a legal right to the grant of furlough. According to the petitioners both the above rules violate Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that while furlough is permitted in respect of other convicts, the petitioners cannot be denied furlough merely on the ground that they have committed offences punishable under section 392 to 402 of IPC and that the classification in that regard is not reasonable and does not satisfy the twin test of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.