Furlough Not An Absolute Right; Convict Cannot Claim Release As A Matter Of Entitlement: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that a person seeking furlough remains a convicted prisoner under a valid judicial order, and if statutory rules impose conditions for release, denial on that basis does not violate the right to personal liberty.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that furlough is not an absolute right, and a convicted prisoner cannot insist on release merely because he satisfies the minimum statutory requirement of imprisonment.
The Court ruled that if the governing prison rules require the convict to undergo a watch period after re-admission to jail, refusal of furlough on that ground cannot be construed as a denial of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a life convict challenging the rejection of his application for furlough. The petitioner argued that he had undergone more than seven years of actual imprisonment, possessed commendable conduct records and therefore fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while deciding the matter, remarked: “…a person seeking furlough is a convict under law, who is incarcerated under a validly passed order by a competent Court. In the instant case, order of conviction of the petitioner has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, if by operation of any statutory rule or any statutory provision, furlough is being denied to the petitioner, it cannot be said that it shall amount to denial of right of liberty enjoyed by the petitioner.”
Advocate Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Rahul Tyagi, ASC, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner was convicted in 2003 for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 406 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2017. During the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court, he was granted bail. In 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reduced the sentence under Section 304B IPC to ten years, and directed the petitioner to surrender. He surrendered on 13.11.2024 and was re-admitted to prison.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for furlough on the ground that he had completed the qualifying period of imprisonment and had been awarded three Annual Good Conduct Reports. The Prison Superintendent rejected the request, citing Clause F(3) of Standing Order 01/2019, which requires a one-year watch period for convicts returning to jail after being released during appeal proceedings.
The petitioner challenged the Standing Order and the rejection order as arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21, and ultra vires the Delhi Prison Rules and the Delhi Prison Act.
The respondents defended the Standing Order, contending that it merely supplements Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules and ensures proper evaluation of the convict’s behaviour after re-admission.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, upon examining the records and relevant statutes, noted that furlough is a statutory concession governed entirely by the Delhi Prison Rules and Standing Orders. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat v. Narayan, reiterating that furlough is not an absolute right and can be denied on lawful grounds.
In the present petition, the Bench held that the petitioner remained incarcerated under a valid conviction upheld up to the Supreme Court, and therefore, denial based on statutory conditions could not be equated with a violation of Article 21. The Bench clarified that "...right to liberty under furlough or parole is regulated by the Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder and therefore, any infringement of such a right can only be attended to by the Courts, if the petitioner or any other person is able to establish infraction of the provisions of the Act, 2000 or rules framed thereunder".
On the legality of Clause F(3) of Standing Order 01/2019, the Court found that the provision only supplements Rule 1223, which requires continuous good conduct. The bench further clarified that the one-year watch period was intended to allow the Superintendent to observe whether a convict who has been outside jail on bail can readjust to prison discipline. The Court held that such a requirement is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The Bench also held that the Standing Order was not ultra vires the Delhi Prison Rules or the Delhi Prison Act. It noted that Standing Orders are administrative directions issued under the supervisory power of the Director General (Prisons) to streamline the furlough process and cannot be struck down merely because they add procedural requirements consistent with the Rules.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the rejection of furlough was legal and did not infringe any fundamental right.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner will become eligible to apply for furlough only after completion of one year from the date of re-admission on 13.11.2024. The authorities were directed to consider any future application strictly in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Deepak Srivastav v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9735-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, Faheem
Respondents: Rahul Tyagi, ASC, Advocates Sangeet Sibou, Aniket Kumar Singh and Priyansh Raj Singh Senger