No blanket denial of furlough even if person is devoid of remission: SC
NEW DELHI: There cannot be a blanket denial of furlough to a convict even if the person is devoid of remission and has to remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his natural life, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said the entitlement of furlough cannot be decided in a case with reference to the question as to whether any remission would be available or not.
Even if the appellant would get furlough (of course, on fulfilment of other conditions) that would not result in any remission because whatever be the remission, he has to spend the whole of the life in prison. But that does not debar him from furlough if he is of good jail conduct and fulfills other eligibility requirements, the bench said.
Furlough means the release of a prisoner for a short period after a gap of certain qualified numbers of years of incarceration by way of motivation for maintaining good conduct and to remain disciplined in the prison.
The observations came while deciding an appeal filed by a convict, guilty of multiple murders, who was awarded the death sentence by a trial court and affirmed by the Delhi high court and the apex court.
The President, however, on
November 15, 2012, commuted the death sentence awarded to the appellant into life imprisonment with the requirement that he would remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his natural life without parole, and there would be no remission of the term of imprisonment.
The man applied for the grant of furlough in terms of the Delhi Prison Rules which was rejected by the DirectorGeneral of Prisons on October 21, 2019, citing the Presidential Order.
A single judge of the Delhi High Court on July 3, 2020, rejected the appeal against the order of the Director-General of Prisons by holding that the convict was not entitled to seek furlough because he was not entitled to remission of any kind.
The top court refused to agree with the finding given by the high court that once it has been provided by the President that the appellant would remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his natural life without parole and remission in the term of imprisonment, all his other rights would stand foreclosed.
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, that does not, as a corollary, mean that his right to seek furlough is foreclosed, it said.
The top court disapproved the blanket denial of furlough to the appellant in the orders impugned and left the case of the appellant for grant of furlough open for examination by the authorities concerned in accordance with the law.
The impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi and the order passed by the Director-General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi is set aside; and 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 be proceeded in accordance with the law. We would expect the Director-General of Prisons to take a decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months from today, the bench said.