♦ Trigger for move is man who raped and murdered a minor after jumping furlough ♦ Rights activists say decision too harsh; lawyers say it will be tested by courtsWhile parole is a conditional leave, furlough is a right to leave earned by a prisoner by virtue of his good behaviour. Once the notification is issued, Maharashtra will become the first state to scrap parole and furloughs for rapists.The trigger for what some civil liberties activists see as a harsh step is serial rapist Anil Jagannath Pawar. Pawar was arrested in 2003 for the rape of a woman in Sinnar in Nashik.He was sentenced to death and the term was later commuted to life sentence by the higher courts. However, he soon jumped his 14-day furlough and was caught only eight years later when he was arrested for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old in Shirdi in 2011. In October 2014 he was sentenced to death, where his previous record and the other offences he committed while on the run were held against him.Rape and rape-and-murder are treated as heinous crimes in the state. At the Yerwada prison, of the 19 deathrow convicts, 14 are serving sentences for rape. At the Nagpur jail, eight of the 15 deathrow convicts are rapists.Civil liberties activists, however, believe that there is no need for such a harsh change in jail manual where every individual request for furlough or parole can be reviewed by jail authorities. Yogesh Kamdar, former vice –president of People’s Union for Civil Liberties, said: “It is a tricky issue. Rapists have deviant minds. Rather than removing parole or furlough, the state should use services of psychiatrists to examine a rape convict’s propensity to repeat the offence. This must be dealt with on a case to case basis.”Noted criminal lawyer Majeed Memon said that while the withdrawal of the benefits of furlough and parole to rape convicts sounds correct in view of the increasing concern about women’s safety, the state government’s decision will have to stand legal scrutiny. “This decision, in all probability, will be questioned and tested by the courts. The judiciary will have to decide as to whether this would be a violation of any of the rights of the convicts or would be treated as an unacceptable disparity and struck down,” he said.