Delhi High Court Upholds One-Year 'Watch Period' Before Grant Of Furlough After Conviction Appeal Dismissal
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the validity of a standing order issued by the Director General (Prisons) mandating one-year “watch period” before being eligible to be released on furlough on their return to jail after dismissal of their conviction appeals.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the standing order was issued in exercise of general administrative powers of the DGP and does not infringes any provision in the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, or the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.
The Court dismissed the plea filed by a convict namely Deepak Srivastav, who challenged the provision as unconstitutional, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Delhi Prison Act, 2000.
Srivastav was convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He prayed that in place of a one year watch period, a period of six months would be reasonable.
He also challenged the order issued by the Director General of Prisons, holding that he was not eligible for furlough in view of the impugned Standing Order and that he may file a fresh application after November 13- after completing one year from the date he was re-admitted to jail on dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court.
It was his case that the impugned rule imposed an unreasonable delay in consideration of furlough applications and was issued without legal authority.
Rejecting the plea, the Bench held that the Standing Order is nothing but a compilation of instructions, which have been issued in order to appropriately apply the Rules while considering or processing any application for grant of furlough.
“Thus, the impugned provision contained in Clause F(3) of the Standing Order No. 01 of 2019 is supplemental to the rules, which authority, in our opinion, can very well being exercised by the Director General of Prisons under his general administrative and supervisory power of control over the affairs of the prisons,” the Court said.
It added that the right to seek furlough is not an absolute right but is rather a right governed by the statutory prescriptions embodied in the Act, 2000 and the Rules.
Further, the Bench rejected Srivastav's contention that the impugned clause creates a separate class without there being any intelligible differentia in as much as that the convicts whose appeals are dismissed are put to a watch for a period of one year, whereas no such fetter is applied in case of an application for furlough made by a convict who has not preferred an appeal against his conviction.
It noted 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.
The Court said that 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.
“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,” it held.
Title: DEEPAK SRIVASTAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS