A.K. SIKRI (ACJ.)

1. In all these writ petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of Clause 26.4 of the Parole/Furlough: Guidelines, 2010. These Guidelines are approved by the Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which are applicable in case of convicts i.e. those who have been convicted by a competent court under various laws and are undergoing sentencing in prison. The purpose of the Guidelines is to regulate applications for parole and furlough and to ensure that they are considered in a fair and transparent manner. Separate provisions for regular parole as well as furlough are made in these Guidelines. Insofar as grant of furlough is concerned which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, Clause 24 states that a prisoner who is sentenced to 5 years or more of rigorous imprisonment and has undergone imprisonment for 3 years or more period excluding remission, can be released on furlough. A prisoner is entitled 7 weeks of furlough in a year. The first spell can be of 3 weeks while the subsequent spells have to be of 2 weeks each. Clause 26.4 mentions eligibility conditions which a prisoner has to fulfill before he would be eligible to obtain furlough.

2. Clause 26, in toto, is reproduced as under:-

26. In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must fulfill the following criteria:-

26.1 Good conduct in the prison and should have earned three „Annual Good Conduct Remissions?and continues to maintain good conduct;

26.2 The prisoner should not be a habitual offender;

26.3 The prisoner should be a citizen of India.

26.4 The prisoner should not have been convicted of robbery, dacoity, arson, kidnapping, abduction, rape and extortion.

26.5 The prisoner should not have been convicted of any offence relating to any offence against the State such as sedition;

26.6 The release of the prisoner should not be considered dangerous or deleterious to the interest of national security or there exists reasonable ground to believe that the convict is involved in a pending investigation in a case involving serious crime;

26.7 The convict is no such a person whose presence is considered highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility by the District Magistrate by his home district.

3. As is clear from Clause 26.4, any prisoner who has been convicted for an offence of robbery, dacoity, arson, kidnapping, abduction, rape and extortion is not eligible for grant of furlough. All the petitioners have been convicted of one or the other offences which is covered by Clause 26.4 and for this reason, having regard to the aforesaid Guidelines, they are not rendered ineligible for grant of furlough. According to the petitioners, this Clause is arbitrary and unreasonable and not based on any intelligible differentia and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that it violates fundamental right of the petitioner to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

4. Before we deal with this contention in detail, we may record the background of these petitioners, in brief.

W.P.(C) 8279/2010:(Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj)

5. The petitioner Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj was convicted under Sections 302, 392, 397 IPC in case FIR No. 538/1995, P.S. Vasant Kunj on 27.2.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner was also convicted under Sections 302,392,397,216-A IPC in case FIR No. 76/1996, PS C.R. Park on 23.4.2004 by the Additional Sessions judge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on 28.4.2004 The petitioner was also convicted under Section 302 IPC in case FIR No. 509/1995 P.S. Vasant Kunj on 23.4.2004 and sentenced on 28.4.2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge to rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner claims that as a convict in prison he has maintained a good, disciplined behaviour and nothing adverse has been reported against him so far. The petitioner has been granted parole on four oc