Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: May 01, 2022 at 08:10 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwar and Justice Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court overturned the judgment by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Bench, vide which the High Court dismissed his writ petition against the order dated 21.10.2019, as issued by the Director-General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi declining his prayer to grant furlough.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a life convict maintains good conduct, and furlough cannot be denied even if no remissions in his sentence are allowed.
The Apex Court stated that the issue at hand is whether the appellant is entitled to furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 despite bar over any remission in the term of imprisonment for the whole of his natural life, it is necessary, in the first place, to take note of the relevant applicable provisions.
The Apex Court stated that after examining the present matter it is hard to agree to the part that once it has been said by the president that a person has to remain in the prison for the rest of his life.
That the presidential order bars parole as also remission but significantly, there is no mention of the treatment of entitlement towards furlough.
That all his rights in return for his good behaviour, including the right of furlough, will be lost.
“…that once it has been provided by the Hon’ble President of India that the appellant would remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life without parole and without remission in the term of imprisonment, all his other rights, particularly those emanating from good jail conduct, as available in the Rules of 2018 stand foreclosed.”, the court said.
The Apex Court, explaining the concept of furlough, stated that furlough is an incentive towards good jail conduct, even if the person is otherwise not to get any remission and has to remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his natural life, it does not, as a corollary, means that his right to seek furlough is foreclosed.
That the prisoner is deemed to be serving the sentence since the period of furlough is not reduced from the actual serving period. And, the conduct is predominantly decisive of entitlement towards furlough. Thus, even if the appellant would be on furlough, he would be deemed to be serving the sentence for all time to come.
The Apex Court further stated that furlough can be granted to a prisoner who doesn’t have a provision of any remission in his sentence, maintaining good conduct within the jail and reformative behaviour doesn’t cease to exist in his relation.
“looking to the concept of furlough and the reasons for extending this concession to a prisoner lead us to hold that even if a prisoner like the appellant is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course.”, The Court said.
That the Apex Court stated that it has been rightly been pointed out, in the Rules of 2018, the eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of ‘3 Annual good conduct reports’ and not ‘3 Annual good conduct remissions’.
That the expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the Rules of 2018 are that the prisoner ought to maintain ‘Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report’ and further that he should continue ‘to maintain good conduct’.
That the issue of this unclear differentiation of Report and Remissions shall be solved by the authorities concerned with the same.
“Such observations, prima facie, appear to be of mixing up the ‘Annual good conduct report’ with ‘Annual good conduct remissions’. Be that as it may, we would leave all other aspects of entitlement of the appellant to furlough open for consideration of the authorities concerned.”, The Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Bench, by stating that the case of the appellant for grant of furlough is restored for reconsideration of the said Director General of Prisons. For that matter, a fresh report may be requisitioned from the jail authorities and the matter may proceed in accordance with the law.
