Delhi High Court Upholds One-Year Observation Period for Furlough Eligibility Post Appeal Dismissal

Court rules the provision balances public interest and jail discipline, dismissing petitioner's challenge to prison guidelines.

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the one-year observation period prescribed for convicts seeking furlough after being re-admitted to jail following the dismissal of their appeal. The decision came in the case of Deepak Srivastav v. State of NCT of Delhi, where the petitioner challenged Clause F(3) of the Standing Order No. 01/2019, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Deepak Srivastav, was convicted for offenses under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. After his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, Srivastav was re-admitted to jail and sought furlough based on his previous good conduct during incarceration. However, his application was rejected due to the one-year observation requirement outlined in the prison guidelines.

The High Court, presided by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, ruled that the furlough is not an absolute legal right and can be regulated by statutory provisions balancing public interest, jail discipline, and reformatory objectives. The court emphasized that the one-year watch period is essential to ensure that convicts adapt to jail discipline and do not pose a threat to society upon release.

The judgment addressed the distinction between convicts who challenge their conviction and those who do not, stating that such classification is reasonable and does not violate Article 14. The court further clarified that the furlough denial does not infringe on the convict's liberty under Article 21, as it is governed by statutory rules.

The ruling also highlighted the differences between furlough and parole, noting that furlough is meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment and is conditional on continued good conduct. The court underscored that furlough can be denied if it is against public interest, and the observation period is a necessary safeguard.

The decision reaffirms the authority of the Director General of Prisons to issue Standing Orders under general administrative powers, and the court found no illegality in the guidelines supplementing the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.

While dismissing the petition, the court directed that any future application for furlough by the petitioner post the observation period should be promptly considered in accordance with the law.

Bottom Line:

Furlough is not an absolute legal right, and can be regulated or denied as per statutory provisions or rules, balancing public interest and the convict's conduct.

Statutory provision(s): Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 Rule 1223, Standing Order No. 01/2019 Clause F(3), Constitution of India Articles 14 and 21, Sections 304B, 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 Section 71.

Deepak Srivastav v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2805061