‘Not an absolute right’: Delhi HC upholds 2019 order mandating 1-year wait for furlough after readmission of convict
A convict once released on bail or on suspension of sentence, upon readmission to the jail, “would take some time to become accustomed to the discipline of the jail,” the Delhi High Court reasoned.
Srivastav then went to the Supreme Court, appealing against the dismissal by the Delhi high court, which released him on bail and suspended his sentence during the pendency of the appeal before the apex court. (File)
The Delhi High Court Friday upheld a 2019 order of the Director General (Prisons) that requires convicts readmitted to jail after disposal of their appeals to be under the prison authorities’ watch for a year before being eligible for furlough.
Holding that the provision is not contrary to any provision within the Delhi Prisons Act and its Rules, Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a challenge to the order, while emphasising that the “right to seek furlough is not an absolute right; it is rather a right governed by the statutory prescriptions”.
The division bench also reasoned that a convict once released on bail or on suspension of sentence, upon readmission to the jail, “would take some time to become accustomed to the discipline of the jail and habits inside the jail.”
The constitutional validity of the order of the prison authorities, issued by Delhi’s DG (Prisons) on March 26, 2019, was challenged in a petition by a convict, Deepak Srivastav, after he was refused furlough by the prison authorities in July this year. The authorities, while rejecting Srivastav’s plea, had pointed out that he can apply for furlough only after November 13, that is, after he completes one year from the date he was re-admitted to jail on dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court.
Srivastav was first convicted by a trial court in 2003 for the offence of a dowry death, committed in 2001, and was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. During the pendency of his appeal against the trial court order at Delhi High Court, the high court had suspended his sentence in 2006. The appeal was finally dismissed in 2017. Srivastav then went to the Supreme Court, appealing against the dismissal by the high court, which released him on bail and suspended his sentence during the pendency of the appeal before the apex court.
The Supreme Court, however, later upheld the high court’s dismissal, upholding the conviction, but reduced the sentence from rigorous life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. He was thus directed to surrender to the prison authorities, with Srivastav submitting to the authorities on November 13, 2024.
The 2019 order issued by the D-G (Prisons) of the Delhi government provides that if a convict is released on regular bail or on suspension of sentence till the disposal of an appeal and is re-admitted to jail after a gap of more than one year, then the convict is not eligible for furlough immediately after admission in jail. It also provides that the Superintendent of Jail may watch the conduct of such a convict for one year from the date of re-admission in jail after the disposal of the appeal, and it is only after the lapse of one year from the date of re-admission that such a convict shall be eligible for furlough, subject to maintaining good conduct.
Story continues below this ad
Srivastav had challenged the rule on the grounds that the period of watch for one year is unreasonable, excessive, and also creates an unreasonable classification between convicts who have filed an appeal against their conviction and those who have not.
The state, on the other hand, through additional standing counsel Rahul Tyagi, submitted that the provision of one-year period is the minimum safeguard deployed by the prison authorities to ensure that convicts who had remained out of jail for a long period and have not been subjected to jail discipline are given a chance to get adjusted to it, and also to ensure that convicts who may be susceptible to repeat the offence are not released into the society.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
