Pendency of Appeal in Supreme Court No Bar to Granting Furlough: Delhi High Court - 2025-07-15

Supreme Court Appeal No Bar to Furlough, Rules Delhi High Court in Landmark Judgment

New Delhi, July 15, 2025 – In a significant ruling clarifying the rights of convicts, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the executive authorities are not barred from considering applications for furlough merely because a convict's appeal is pending before the Supreme Court of India. The Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma , set aside an earlier interpretation, emphasizing that furlough is a reformative measure distinct from the judicial power of suspending a sentence.

The Court concluded that interpreting Delhi's prison rules to block furlough during the pendency of a Supreme Court appeal would be discriminatory and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Recognizing the substantial questions of law involved, the High Court has also granted a Certificate of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

---

Background of the Reference

The judgment came on a reference from a Single Judge Bench, which was hearing a batch of petitions from convicts whose furlough applications were rejected by prison authorities. The rejections were based on an interpretation of Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The rule explicitly states that furlough will not be granted if an appeal is pending before the High Court .

The Single Judge had previously held that the term "High Court" in the rule should be interpreted to include the "Supreme Court." This was based on the "derogation of power" principle laid down in the landmark 1961 Supreme Court case of K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay , which held that the executive cannot exercise its power to suspend a sentence when the judiciary is seized of the matter. However, the Single Judge referred the question of the constitutional validity of such an interpretation to the Division Bench.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioners' Submissions:

The petitioners, represented by a team of senior advocates and legal aid counsel, argued that: - The language of Rule 1224 is clear and deliberately omits the "Supreme Court." Reading it into the rule would be judicial overreach. - The Nanavati principle is inapplicable as it deals with suspension of sentence, whereas furlough is a temporary release where the sentence continues to run. Furlough is an earned incentive for good conduct. - Barring furlough for those who appeal to the Supreme Court creates an arbitrary and unconstitutional classification between convicts, violating Article 14 (right to equality). - Such a bar would undermine the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of the prison system, enshrined in the Rules themselves.

State's Contentions:

The State, on the other hand, argued that: - The Single Judge's interpretation was correct, and the grant of furlough by the executive while an appeal is sub-judice before the Supreme Court would conflict with the judiciary's powers. - Furlough and parole are species of remission, and granting them would amount to interfering with the sentence under the Supreme Court's consideration.

Court's Analysis: Distinguishing Furlough from Suspension of Sentence

The Division Bench undertook a fresh examination of the issue, revisiting the foundational K.M. Nanavati case and subsequent jurisprudence. The court made several key observations:

• Nature of Furlough: The Bench emphasized that furlough is conceptually different from bail or suspension of sentence. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Sunil Fulchand Shah and Atbir , the court noted that furlough is a "brief release from prison" granted for good conduct, aimed at breaking the monotony of incarceration and helping convicts maintain family ties. It is not a suspension of sentence; the convict is deemed to be in "constructive custody" and the sentence continues to run.

• Deliberate Omission in Rules: The court found that the omission of the term "Supreme Court" in Note 2 to Rule 1224 was intentional. It pointed out that other provisions within the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, specifically refer to both the High Court and the Supreme Court, indicating that the drafters were conscious of the distinction.

• Legislative Competence: The Bench also noted that since "prisons" is a state subject, the state legislature cannot enact rules that impinge upon or confer jurisdiction related to the Supreme Court.

The Court observed: "The Delhi Prison Rules do not bar consideration of parole and furlough if the matter is pending before the Supreme Court... The grant or non-grant of the parole and furlough on merits would depend on the facts of each case."

The Final Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court answered the referred questions decisively, stating that interpreting Rule 1224 to bar furlough during a pending Supreme Court appeal would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The court held: 1. Note 2 to Rule 1224 cannot be interpreted to bar a prisoner's right to apply for furlough while their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. 2. Denying furlough solely on this ground would run contrary to the reformative approach of the prison system. 3. The jurisprudence on parole, which establishes it is not a suspension of sentence, applies equally to furlough.

Consequently, the findings of the Single Judge on this issue were set aside. The Court directed that all the individual writ petitions be placed before the appropriate roster bench to be decided on their own facts, in light of this judgment.

This ruling reaffirms the executive's power to grant reformative releases like furlough and ensures that a convict's statutory right to appeal to the highest court does not become a disadvantage that strips them of earned privileges for good conduct.