State Can't Curtail Reformative Provisions Like Parole, Furlough In Name Of Disciplining Prison Inmates: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court today frowned upon the Delhi government for withdrawing a notification which prescribed that a punishment of warning imposed upon a prisoner shall not stand in his way of seeking furlough.Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the said withdrawal was a “regressive step”, not consonant with the concept of reformation of the convict.“Authorities must keep in mind...
The Delhi High Court today frowned upon the Delhi government for withdrawing a notification which prescribed that a punishment of warning imposed upon a prisoner shall not stand in his way of seeking furlough.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the said withdrawal was a “regressive step”, not consonant with the concept of reformation of the convict.
“Authorities must keep in mind the basic purpose of the concepts of parole and furlough. The requests for parole and furlough have to be examined in a paradigm different from other issues. The basic purpose of these provisions is to prevent prisonization and thereby the same are steps towards reformation of the convict,” the bench observed.
The counsel appearing for the government argued that the decision was necessary in order to inculcate discipline in jail amongst convicts.
However, unconvinced, the Court remarked,
“There is no dispute that discipline must be adhered to in jails also. The issue is as to whether in the name of intra-jail discipline, the authorities can adversely impact the utility of the provisions created for reformation of the convict.”
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a prisoner challenging rejection of his request for furlough by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, jumped furlough and surrendered three days after the due date.
Petitioner submitted that there was delay in surrender because he had suffered an eye injury and even the stitches were removed in the jail itself, so the jail authorities are well aware about the reason behind delay in surrender.
The jail authority argued that Petitioner was given punishment of warning and thus, fresh furlough request can be filed only after one year.
The High Court however was of the view that “merely because the convict released on parole and/or furlough fails to surrender in time, unless there are other inculpatory circumstances, delay of a day or two in surrender must be examined with a slight tilt in favour of the convict in order to ensure proper utilization of these tools of reformation.”
As such, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the competent authority to decide the furlough application afresh.
Appearance: Mr. Priyal Bhardwaj, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with SI Gaurav, PS Kalyanpuri
Case title: Chetan v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 2799/2025