Furlough Is Benevolent Provision, Will Lose Purpose If It Is Bound By Mechanical Interpretations Of Prison Rules: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that if the provision of furlough is bound by rigid and mechanical interpretations of the Prison Rules, it will lose its true purpose and shine.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a “benevolent provision” designed for the welfare of prisoners will diminish in the shadow of rigid interpretations by competent authorities.“The Courts must be...
The Delhi High Court has observed that if the provision of furlough is bound by rigid and mechanical interpretations of the Prison Rules, it will lose its true purpose and shine.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a “benevolent provision” designed for the welfare of prisoners will diminish in the shadow of rigid interpretations by competent authorities.
“The Courts must be compassionate to ensure that the solitude of prison cells does not adversely affect the mental well-being of a prisoner and that the path of their rehabilitation is not derailed under the pretext of their reformation being inconsequential,” the court said.
It noted that Rule 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules, which states the objectives of releasing a prisoner on parole and furlough, has been meticulously crafted by the drafting committee with both caution and foresight.
The court observed that it is only through empathy and understanding that “we can truly appreciate the depth and sincerity” of furlough provisions, ensuring that justice is served with fairness and humanity.
“The provision of furlough stands as a constructive hope for individuals amidst incarceration. It offers a glimmer of opportunity for temporary release, allowing individuals to reconnect with their families, seek medical treatment, or pursue rehabilitation programs. Furlough provides a chance for prisoners to rebuild connections, maintain a sense of normalcy, and foster hope for a brighter future beyond the confines of prison walls,” it said.
Justice Sharma made the observations while releasing a man serving life imprisonment after being convicted in a POCSO case, on furlough for three weeks.
He was convicted for the offences under Section 376(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He said that he was remorseful of the act committed by him and that he had reformed himself. He submitted that he was working in the jail canteen and was sending his earnings regularly to his family.
The court noted that the convict fulfilled the criteria mentioned under Rule 1223 to obtain furlough- good conduct in the prison, earning of three annual good conduct report, to not be a habitual offender and to be citizen of India.
“The petitioner is working as canteen sahayak, he has been in judicial custody for almost 10 years without remission, as per nominal roll placed on record. During emergency parole granted to him, he had surrendered in time and, therefore, to reject furlough application simply on the ground that he was involved in heinous offence would defeat the very purpose for which the provision was enacted,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan, Advocate (DHCLSC)
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State; Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates
Title: ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI