Right to seek furlough subject to statutory prescriptions, maintains Delhi HC
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by Deepak Srivastava, who was convicted of dowry death and cruelty towards his wife
New Delhi
The right to seek furlough is not absolute but is subject to statutory prescriptions, the Delhi High Court ruled on Friday, as it upheld the 2019 rule framed by the director general (prisons), requiring convicts who return to jail after a gap of more than a year following the dismissal of their appeals to remain under observation for one year before becoming eligible to seek furlough.
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by Deepak Srivastava, who was convicted of dowry death and cruelty towards his wife, and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2003.
His sentence was suspended by the high court in February 2006 during the pendency of his appeal, but his conviction was upheld in August 2017. Srivastava then approached the Supreme Court, which granted him bail for the course of the appeal. In October 2024, the apex court upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years, directing him to surrender within three weeks, which he did on November 13, 2024.
Subsequently, Srivastava applied for furlough in December 2024, claiming he had already served seven years of imprisonment. However, the DG (prisons) rejected his request on July 23, 2025, citing the 2019 standing order. The jail authorities said that Srivastava could only apply for furlough after November 13.
Srivastava then approached the high court, challenging the July 23 order and the 2019 rule.
The 2019 rule bars convicts from seeking furlough if they were released on bail or had their sentence suspended during appeal and are re-admitted to jail after over a year’s gap, even if they had earned three Annual Good Conduct Reports before release. It mandates the jail superintendent to monitor the convict’s conduct for a period of one year from the date of their readmission following the disposal of the appeal.
In his petition before the high court, Srivastava, represented by advocate Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, contended that the rule was introduced without any authority of law, excessive, and that there was no justification either under the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 or the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, for a year observation period upon the return of a convict to prison on dismissal of the appeal. He further argued that the rule effectively deprived convicts of their liberty for 49 days, amounting to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty and created an arbitrary distinction between convicts who appeal their convictions and those who do not. Chowdhary went on to add that the DG (prisons) had no power to issue such a rule.
Opposing the petition, the Delhi government’s additional standing counsel, Rahul Tyagi, asserted that the order has been issued with an objective of strict adherence to the protocol for uniformity and to streamline furlough-related applications. He submitted that the one-year observation period serves as a necessary safeguard to allow convicts who have been out of prison for an extended period to readjust to jail discipline.
Upholding the rule, the court in its 23-page judgment observed that it does not create any distinction between convicts who challenge their convictions and those who do not, and therefore, does not violate the right to equality or the right to life and personal liberty.
“At this juncture, we must note that once a convict is released on bail or on suspension of sentence and is out of jail, and thereafter, on dismissal of appeal is re-admitted to jail, he certainly would take some time to become accustomed to the discipline of the jail and habits inside the jail. Such an occasion for the convicts who have not preferred the appeal against their conviction does not arise because they are not out of jail; rather, they are serving their sentence,” the court said,
“Accordingly, the submission that the convicts who have preferred appeal, which are dismissed, and the convicts who have not preferred any appeal against their conviction form the same class, is absolutely, in our considered opinion, misconceived, and therefore, we opine that the impugned provision is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court maintained.
