New Delhi, The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the validity of a prison authorities’ order mandating a one-year “watch period” for convicts before becoming eligible for furlough upon returning to jail after their appeals against conviction are dismissed.
The high court passed the judgment while dismissing a petition seeking to declare a clause of a 2019 standing order issued by the Director General as ultra vires the Constitution, being violative of Article 14 and 21 and the Delhi Prison Act and Rules.
The court also refused to grant the alternative place that, in place of a one-year watch period, a period of six months would be reasonable.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the standing order was issued in exercise of general administrative powers of the DGP and does not infringe on any provision in the Delhi Prisons Act or the Delhi Prisons Rules.
The court also rejected petitioner Deepak Srivastav’s contention that the clause creates a separate class without there being any intelligible differentia in as much as that the convicts whose appeals are dismissed are put to a watch for a period of one year, whereas no such fetter is applied in case of an application for furlough made by a convict who has not preferred an appeal against his conviction.
The court said once a convict is released on bail or on suspension of sentence and is out of jail, and thereafter, on dismissal of appeal is re-admitted to jail, he would certainly take some time to become accustomed to the discipline of the jail and habits inside the jail.
“Such an occasion for the convicts who have not preferred the appeal against their conviction does not arise because they are not out of jail; rather, they are serving their sentence,” it said.
The court held as “misconceived” the submission that the convicts who have preferred an appeal which are dismissed and the convicts who have not preferred any appeal against their conviction form the same class.
Petitioner Srivastav was convicted for the offences of dowry death and harassment caused to a married woman under sections of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
He also challenged the order issued by the Director General of Prisons, holding that he was not eligible for furlough in view of the standing order and that he may file a fresh application after November 13 after completing one year from the date he was re-admitted to jail on dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court.
He contended that the rule imposed an unreasonable delay in consideration of furlough applications and was issued without legal authority.
The high court directed that in case the petitioner applies for the grant of furlough after November 13, the prayer should be attended to by the authority concerned and be decided at the earliest in accordance with law.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
