Furlough should not be a free pass

Rape convict and Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh walked out of jail in Haryana earlier this week on a 21-day furlough. This is his 17th temporary release since his conviction in 2017. Singh was convicted of raping two of his disciples and sentenced to 20 yrs in prison. To date, he has spent 435 days outside, excluding the current furlough. Furlough and parole are forms of temporary release, with the former more closely linked to good conduct and rehabilitation, while parole is tied to specific circumstances.

The Prisons Act 1894 empowers states to frame rules on matters including remission, good conduct and the release of prisoners. Haryana's 2022 law allows furlough as an incentive for good conduct. But the Supreme Court has held that furlough is not an absolute legal right. The state law excludes 'hardcore convicted prisoners' from the temporary-release regime, but the term does not encompass every conviction for rape or murder. It specifies categories such as rape with murder, rape or aggravated sexual assault involving a child below 16, gang rape, serial killing and contract killing. Singh's two murder convictions are for criminal conspiracy, which is why he has not been classified as a hardcore prisoner.

Rape, sexual abuse of minors and murder are heinous crimes. Creating exceptions that allow a person convicted of such offences to be treated on a par with those convicted of less heinous crimes risks making a mockery of justice. Ensuring that women are safe and feel safe is a marker of a developed society. Singh was - and continues to be - a person in a position of power. Allowing him 'time out' of prison, even after conviction, sends a chilling message. Rehabilitation is a worthy goal, but it should not come at the cost of justice.