Summary
A prisoner whose death sentence had been commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without parole or remission was denied furlough on that basis. Construing the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and the presidential order, the Court held that remission was not a prerequisite for consideration of furlough. It set aside the blanket denial and remitted the application for a fresh assessment under all applicable eligibility and public-interest conditions, including those governing multiple-murder convicts.
Issues
- Whether the presidential bar on parole and remission also barred consideration of furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
- Whether the prisoner was entitled to immediate release or only reconsideration under the applicable rules.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(h), Delhi Prisons Act, 2000Furlough was treated as temporary leave rewarding qualifying prison conduct, within the statutory and regulatory framework. (¶ 9.1-9.3)
- Rules 1197-1200, 1220-1225, particularly Rule 1223(I), Delhi Prison Rules, 2018Good-conduct reports and rewards were distinct from remission; eligibility for furlough required assessment under the rules without treating a remission bar as automatically decisive. (¶¶ 9.2-9.3, 12-17.1)
Held
- Rule 1223(I) referred to rewards in the last three annual good-conduct reports and continuing good conduct, not to earning three annual good-conduct remissions. The two concepts could not be equated to impose an additional threshold for furlough. (¶¶ 12, 16)
- The presidential order expressly prohibited parole and remission but did not prohibit furlough. Time on furlough counted towards service of the sentence, and its grant would not shorten the requirement of imprisonment for the prisoner’s natural life. The order therefore did not foreclose consideration of furlough. (¶¶ 12.1-13.1, 16)
- Furlough provided an incentive for discipline and reform, which remained relevant even for a whole-life prisoner. The reasoning in Chandra Kant Jha that remission was a necessary precursor to furlough was disapproved; the observations in Asfaq and the remission principles in Sriharan did not compel that conclusion. (¶¶ 14-15, 17)
- There was no absolute right to release on furlough. All other eligibility and public-interest considerations remained open, including the specific requirements of Rule 1225 for a person convicted of multiple murders. The Court determined only that blanket denial on the ground of the presidential order was unsustainable. (¶¶ 10.1, 16-18)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court and Director General of Prisons orders were set aside, and the furlough application restored for reconsideration according to law, with a fresh jail report if required. An expeditious decision, preferably within two months, was expected; furlough itself was not ordered.