The Delhi High Court has clarified that the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, do not impose an absolute ban on simultaneous furlough or parole to co-accused, affirming that such decisions remain discretionary and must be balanced against the rehabilitative objectives of incarceration under Article 21. The judgment redefines the scope of prison administrative discretion, emphasizing that procedural restrictions must not override constitutional imperatives of human dignity and reformation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitions challenge NOTE-(2) of Rule 1212 and NOTE-(1) of Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, which state that simultaneous parole or furlough to co-accused is "ordinarily not permissible," except in exceptional circumstances where the co-accused are family members. The petitioners, Sandeep @ Sandy and Vijay Dahiya, were convicted in a 2016 murder case under Sections 302/201/120B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years without remission. Both petitioners have served over five years and are eligible for furlough under Rule 1220. However, their applications for furlough were rejected on the ground that other co-accused had recently been granted furlough, triggering the prohibition under the impugned notes.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were among six accused convicted by the Trial Court on 03.02.2018.
- Their appeals were partly allowed by the Delhi High Court on 26.06.2023, upholding conviction but modifying sentence to life with 20-year minimum.
- The Supreme Court dismissed their SLP (Crl.) No. 16306/2023 on 13.12.2023.
- Sandeep @ Sandy applied for furlough on 05.03.2024 and was denied because a non-family co-accused had been granted furlough earlier.
- Vijay Dahiya has been unable to secure furlough since 2024 due to the same restriction.
- Both petitioners have maintained unblemished conduct records since conviction.
- Rule 1220 permits furlough for prisoners sentenced to five or more years who have served three years with good conduct.
- Rule 1224’s Note-(1) prohibits simultaneous furlough to co-accused "ordinarily," except when they are family members.
Procedural History
- 03.02.2018: Conviction by Trial Court in FIR No. 862/2016.
- 26.06.2023: Delhi High Court upholds conviction, modifies sentence to life with 20-year minimum.
- 13.12.2023: Supreme Court dismisses SLP (Crl.) No. 16306/2023.
- 05.03.2024: Sandeep’s furlough application rejected by Competent Authority citing Rule 1224 Note-(1).
- 2024: Vijay Dahiya’s furlough applications repeatedly denied on same ground.
- 2024: W.P.(Crl.) 1832/2024 filed by Sandeep @ Sandy.
- 2025: W.P.(Crl.) 945/2025 filed by Vijay Dahiya.
- 25.03.2026: Judgement reserved.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by Delhi High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners argue that the impugned notes, if interpreted as absolute prohibitions, violate the rehabilitative purpose of furlough and infringe upon their rights under Article 21. They contend that the word "ordinarily" implies discretion, not prohibition, and that blanket denial denies them the incentive of good conduct. The respondents argue that furlough is a discretionary privilege, not a right, and that simultaneous release of co-accused poses risks to public order, especially in cases involving violent crimes.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek a declaration that NOTE-(2) of Rule 1212 and NOTE-(1) of Rule 1224 are unconstitutional to the extent they prohibit simultaneous furlough to co-accused, and direct the Competent Authority to consider their applications without applying an absolute bar.
The Legal Issue
Can the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, be interpreted to impose an absolute prohibition on simultaneous furlough or parole to co-accused, even when they are eligible and have maintained good conduct, or must the word "ordinarily" in the Notes be read as permitting discretion subject to public safety concerns?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) and Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022) to argue that furlough is a reformative tool, not a privilege to be arbitrarily denied. They emphasized that the Rules’ use of "ordinarily" indicates flexibility, not rigidity. Citing Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar and S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, they urged the Court to read down the Rules to align with the object of rehabilitation under Article 21. They further argued that denying furlough indefinitely due to the timing of co-accused releases effectively nullifies the incentive mechanism, violating the principle of proportionality.
For the Respondent
The State contended that furlough is a discretionary administrative measure, not a fundamental right, and that simultaneous release of co-accused in serious crime cases may lead to collusion, witness intimidation, or re-offending. Relying on State of Gujarat v. Narayan (2021) and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar (2006), they argued that prison rules must prioritize public safety and social order. They maintained that the exception for family members was deliberately included to balance humanitarian concerns with security, and that the Rules were framed in conformity with the Model Prison Manual, 2016.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the statutory and constitutional framework governing parole and furlough. It began by distinguishing between the two: parole is conditional release for specific reasons, while furlough is a reward for good conduct, with the time spent outside counted toward the sentence. The Court emphasized that furlough, as defined in Rule 1199 and Section 2(h) of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000, is an incentive mechanism designed to motivate discipline and reformation.
"Furlough is granted as a good conduct remission. A convict, literally speaking, must remain in jail for the period of sentence... it is in this context that his release from jail for a short period has to be considered as an opportunity afforded to him not only to solve his personal and family problems but also to maintain his links with society."
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Asfaq and Atbir had consistently held that the right to furlough, though not absolute, is constitutionally protected under Article 21 as part of the prisoner’s right to dignity and rehabilitation. The Court observed that the Rules themselves do not use the word "prohibited" but "ordinarily not permissible," a phrase that inherently allows for exceptions.
"The said provisions, therefore, advisedly use the expression ‘ordinarily’, which in itself implies that while there is discretion to grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, ‘ordinarily’ it is not permissible."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the exception for family members was the only permissible scenario. It held that such an interpretation would render the Rules arbitrary and disproportionate, especially where multiple co-accused are eligible and their releases cannot be staggered due to administrative constraints. The Court further held that the Competent Authority must assess each case on its merits, considering whether simultaneous release poses a real threat to public order, witness safety, or re-offending risk. If such risks exist, they may be mitigated through conditions, not outright denial.
The Court also clarified that the inclusion of the family member exception was illustrative, not exhaustive. It stated: "Mere mention of this exception, however, cannot curtail the general permissible provisions contained in the Impugned Rules. The Impugned Rules are only to restrict and not prohibit the simultaneous grant of parole/furlough to the co-accused."
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in part. The Delhi High Court held that NOTE-(2) of Rule 1212 and NOTE-(1) of Rule 1224 do not impose an absolute prohibition on simultaneous furlough or parole to co-accused. The Competent Authority must exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis, considering public safety, the nature of the offence, conduct in prison, and the risk of collusion. The Court directed that the petitioners’ pending furlough applications be reconsidered in light of this judgment, without applying a blanket bar. There is no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Discretion Must Be Reasoned, Not Automatic
- Practitioners must now argue that blanket denials of simultaneous furlough violate the principle of proportionality under Article 21.
- Competent Authorities must record written reasons for denying simultaneous release, citing specific threats - not merely the existence of co-accused.
- A prisoner’s good conduct record must be weighed more heavily than the mere fact of co-accused status.
Administrative Flexibility Required in Multi-Accused Cases
- In cases with multiple co-accused (e.g., gang-related crimes), staggered furloughs may be administratively impractical; simultaneous release may be the only feasible option.
- Authorities must consider alternatives like supervised release, GPS monitoring, or restricted movement rather than outright denial.
- The exception for family members is not the sole pathway; it is one of several permissible grounds.
Constitutional Imperative Over Rule-Based Rigidity
- Prison rules cannot override the rehabilitative mandate of Article 21.
- Courts will scrutinize rules that effectively nullify incentives for good conduct.
- Future challenges to similar provisions in other state prison rules may now rely on this precedent.
