Furlough is Not an Absolute Right — One-Year Watch Period for Re-Admitted Convicts is a Valid Safeguard: Delhi High Court Upholds Clause F(3) of Standing Order 01/2019

“Merely earning three AGCRs is not enough — post-re-admission conduct must also be assessed. Clause F(3) supplements Rule 1223(1) and does not violate Article 14 or 21” —  In a significant verdict reaffirming that furlough is a conditional reformative relief and not an enforceable legal right, the Delhi High Court, in a reportable judgment dated 7 November 2025, dismissed a constitutional challenge to Clause F(3) of Standing Order No. 01/2019, which imposes a mandatory one-year watch period on convicts re-admitted to jail after dismissal of appeal before becoming eligible for furlough.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Standing Order is a valid exercise of administrative discretion, not ultra vires the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 or Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and does not infringe upon Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Court ruled that the one-year watch period serves a rational and necessary purpose: to monitor disciplinary adjustment of convicts who have remained outside the prison system for long durations due to bail or sentence suspension.

“Furlough is Not a Fundamental Right — Its Denial Based on Rules Does Not Violate Article 21”

The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Gujarat v. Narayan (2021) 20 SCC 304, which held that:

“Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough. It can be refused to certain categories of prisoners in the interest of society.”

Accordingly, the Bench held:

“Right to seek furlough is not an absolute right; it is rather a right governed by statutory prescriptions… If by operation of a valid rule furlough is denied, it does not amount to infringement of Article 21.”

The petitioner, convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, 406 IPC, was re-admitted to jail on 13 November 2024 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence. His furlough request was denied on 23 July 2025 due to Clause F(3), which mandates a one-year good conduct assessment upon re-admission.

The Court held that such a clause merely supplements Rule 1223(1) of the Delhi Prison Rules, which requires not only three Annual Good Conduct Reports (AGCRs) but also continued good behaviour to qualify for furlough.

“Director General’s Standing Orders are Not Ultra Vires — They are Valid Administrative Instruments Supplementing Statutory Rules”

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the Director General (Prisons) lacks authority to issue such Standing Orders, the Court clarified:

“The Standing Order is not a delegated legislation requiring statutory backing, but a set of instructions that supplement the existing rules. They do not contradict the Delhi Prisons Act or Rules.”

The Court found that Standing Order No. 01/2019 was issued pursuant to Delhi High Court’s own direction in W.P. (Crl.) 2552/2018 for streamlining furlough procedures and enhancing uniformity in prison administration.

It ruled that the DG (Prisons) exercises general supervisory powers, and the one-year watch period was a reasonable administrative measure for convicts who have stayed out of jail for long periods due to suspended sentences.

“Classification Between Convicts Who Appeal and Those Who Do Not Is Reasonable and Intelligible”

The petitioner had argued that Clause F(3) violates Article 14 by arbitrarily discriminating between two classes of convicts — those who file appeals and are re-admitted upon dismissal, and those who never appeal and serve sentences continuously.

The Court rejected this contention:

“The two categories are not similarly situated. Convicts who have remained in jail continuously never exit the prison system. Re-admitted convicts need re-adjustment to jail discipline, and thus, a one-year watch period is justified.”

It further held that intelligible differentia exists in the period of absence from prison and potential for recidivism, justifying the additional scrutiny for re-admitted convicts.

“Parole and Furlough Are Conceptually Different — Parity in Watch Period Cannot Be Claimed”

The petitioner argued that furlough should be governed by a six-month watch period, as is the case with parole under Rule 1210(v) and re-consideration of premature release under Rule 1257.

Rejecting this, the Court distinguished parole and furlough based on Supreme Court precedents:

“Furlough is granted for long-term imprisonment to break monotony and is counted within the sentence period. Parole is usually emergency-based, for short-term relief, and not counted in sentence duration.”

The Court cited Narayan (2021) and Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55, highlighting that:

• Parole may be granted multiple times and for emergencies.
• Furlough is a regulated privilege, not a necessity.
• Longer custody gaps necessitate stricter supervision before granting furlough.

Hence, the one-year threshold for furlough eligibility cannot be assailed for being disproportionate vis-à-vis parole or premature release watch periods.

“Conduct Must Be Watched Anew After Re-admission — AGCRs Before Bail Do Not Suffice”

One of the central arguments made by the petitioner was that he had already earned three AGCRs prior to his release on bail, and thus should not be required to wait for another year.

The Court disagreed:

“Post-re-admission conduct is essential. Clause F(3) ensures that the jail authorities have sufficient time to assess whether the convict continues to exhibit good behaviour after returning from bail.”

The Court emphasized that prior conduct before bail cannot conclusively determine current eligibility, especially after a significant break in incarceration.

Thus, Clause F(3) plays a vital monitoring function and does not infringe constitutional protections.

Liberty of Convict is Not Denied Arbitrarily — One-Year Wait is a Reasonable Safeguard

The Delhi High Court upheld the impugned order dated 23 July 2025, denying the petitioner’s furlough application until 13 November 2025, and also dismissed his challenge to Clause F(3) of Standing Order No. 01/2019.

The Court ruled that:

“The petitioner was re-admitted to jail after a long hiatus. A watch period of one year is not excessive; it reflects a measured and calibrated approach balancing jail reform with public safety.”

No violation of Articles 14 or 21 was found. The Court further directed that the petitioner’s subsequent application for furlough post 13.11.2025 must be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025