Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, declared that Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which prohibited grant of furlough to convicts with pending appeals before the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional. The Court held that this provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and undermines the reformative theory of punishment. It directed that prisoners whose appeals are pending before the Supreme Court shall not be disentitled from applying for furlough, and such applications should be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the other conditions of the Rules.
The Court further ruled that the principle of derogation of power from K.M. Nanavati is not applicable to furlough, since furlough does not amount to suspension of sentence. The Court conclusively held:
“Furlough being an incentive for good conduct cannot be denied on the sole ground that an appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Facts
The case involved a batch of petitions filed by various convicts including the lead petitioner who sought furlough under Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules. Their furlough applications were rejected by the prison authorities citing Note 2 to Rule 1224, which prohibited furlough if an appeal was pending before the “High Court”. The convicts argued that the word ‘High Court’ could not be read to include ‘Supreme Court’, as the Prison Rules specifically differentiate between the two in other provisions.
The Single Judge of the High Court had earlier interpreted that “High Court” included the “Supreme Court” and denied furlough during pending appeals before the apex court. The matter was referred to a Division Bench to examine whether such interpretation and rule violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the reformative approach, and whether principles applicable to parole could be applied to furlough.
Issues
- Whether Note 2 to Rule 1224 violates Articles 14 (equality) and Article 21 of the Constitution by barring furlough during pendency of Supreme Court appeals.
- Whether denial of furlough during pendency of Supreme Court appeals undermines the reformative theory of punishment.
- Whether principles applicable to parole apply to furlough, especially regarding non-suspension of sentence.
- Whether the Single Judge’s interpretation of “High Court” including “Supreme Court” was correct under law.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners, through senior counsel and legal aid counsels, argued that furlough is a reward for good conduct and serves the purpose of reformation and rehabilitation. They contended that:
- The word “High Court” in Note 2 cannot be read expansively to include the Supreme Court, since the Rules distinguish between the two.
- Furlough is neither a remission nor suspension of sentence, thus the principle of derogation of power as laid down in K.M. Nanavati does not apply.
- Denying furlough on the basis of pending Supreme Court appeals amounts to arbitrary classification, violating Article 14.
- This restriction discourages prisoners from filing appeals before the Supreme Court, violating Article 21.
- The Bombay High Court and Tamil Nadu High Court have struck down similar restrictions, recognizing the right to furlough as integral to the reformatory process.
- Judicial review under Article 226 remains valid even during pendency of Supreme Court appeals.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the rule by relying on the Single Judge’s interpretation and the principle of derogation of power. It argued:
- The Executive cannot grant furlough when the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court to avoid conflict of jurisdiction.
- Furlough and parole are akin to remission, and any relaxation during appeal can undermine the judicial process.
- Under the Delhi Prison Act, the power to regulate furlough rests with the Executive and such statutory restrictions are lawful.
Analysis of the Law
The Court comprehensively analyzed the K.M. Nanavati ruling, concluding it applied only to suspension of sentence and remission, and not to furlough, as furlough does not suspend sentence, nor does it infringe upon the appellate powers of the Supreme Court.
It further differentiated furlough from parole, stating that furlough is granted as a matter of reformation, without affecting conviction or sentence. The Court stressed that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution mandate equal treatment of similarly placed convicts, and denial of furlough solely due to pending Supreme Court appeals violates these rights.
The Court also noted the Model Prison Manual 2023 and judgments from other High Courts which support progressive interpretation favoring reformative practices.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon:
- Atbir v. State of NCT Delhi (2022), holding that furlough is a right based on good conduct, not to be denied arbitrarily.
- Tanaji Maruti Kolekar v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) where similar restriction was struck down post-amendment.
- T. Ramalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court Full Bench) which upheld furlough during pendency of appeals.
- Maru Ram v. Union of India, and Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, reiterating the non-suspension of sentence in furlough.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that there is no rational basis to treat convicts with pending Supreme Court appeals differently. The purpose of furlough is reformation and social reintegration, and denying it based on a pending appeal is unconstitutional.
It categorically held:
“There exists no reasonable classification that justifies the denial of furlough based on pendency of Supreme Court appeals when good conduct remains the central criterion.”
Further, the Court held High Court retains its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief, not as an appellate court, but in judicial review of executive decisions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court struck down Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, to the extent it prohibited furlough during pendency of Supreme Court appeals. It held this provision violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and contrary to the reformative approach enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court clarified that convicts whose appeals are pending before the Supreme Court are entitled to apply for furlough, and such applications must be considered on merits by the competent authority.
Implications
This judgment will significantly impact prison administration in Delhi by allowing more equitable access to furlough, upholding fundamental rights of convicts, and affirming the importance of reformation and rehabilitation in sentencing. It also reiterates the constitutional role of the High Court to review executive action, even during pendency of Supreme Court appeals.
FAQs
Q1. Can a convict apply for furlough during pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court?
Yes, the Delhi High Court has ruled that pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court does not disqualify a convict from furlough, affirming their right to apply under prison rules.
Q2. What is the key distinction between furlough and parole recognized by the Court?
The Court held that furlough is a reward for good conduct and does not suspend the sentence, unlike parole, which is temporary release often tied to urgent circumstances.
Q3. Does the High Court have the power to grant furlough when an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court?
Yes, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating the High Court retains judicial review powers, independent of the Supreme Court appeal process.
