Archive · 7 Nov 2025
Delhi HC Upholds 1-Year Wait for Furlough After Convicts' Readmission to Jail
Imagine someone is in jail but gets out for a while because their case is being reviewed.
If their case review is over and they have to go back to jail, a new rule says they have to wait one whole year in jail before they can ask to go out on furlough again.
A person who had to go back to jail challenged this rule, saying it wasn't fair.
But the big court said the rule is okay.
They explained that when someone comes back to jail after being out for a long time, they need some time to get used to the jail rules again.
It's also a way to make sure people who might be risky aren't let out too soon.
So, while people can ask for furlough, it's not a guaranteed right and depends on the rules.
The Delhi High Court upheld a 2019 order requiring a one-year watch period for convicts before furlough eligibility after readmission to jail.
The court stated that the right to furlough is not absolute and is subject to statutory rules.
A convict, Deepak Srivastav, challenged the order, arguing the one-year period was unreasonable and created unfair classifications.
Srivastav was readmitted to jail on November 13, 2024, after his appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The government argued the one-year period allows convicts to adjust to jail discipline and prevents release of potentially risky individuals.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court (Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela)
- What
- Upheld a 2019 order mandating a one-year wait for furlough for convicts after their readmission to jail following the dismissal of their appeals.
- When
- Friday (date not specified, but ruling delivered on Friday)
- Where
- Delhi High Court
- Why
- The court held that the right to furlough is not absolute but governed by statutory prescriptions and that the one-year period is a necessary safeguard for convicts readmitted to jail after a period of absence.
Convict's Argument
Government's Argument
One-Year Watch Period for Furlough Eligibility
Convict's Argument
The convict argued that the one-year 'watch' period after readmission to jail is unreasonable and excessive.
Government's Argument
The government argued that the one-year period serves as a minimum safeguard to allow convicts time to adjust to jail discipline after being outside for a long time and to prevent potential repeat offenses.
Classification of Convicts
Convict's Argument
The convict contended that the rule creates an unreasonable classification between those who filed an appeal against their conviction and those who did not.
Government's Argument
The government's argument implicitly suggests that the distinction is justified due to differing circumstances of release and readmission to jail.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Order Challenged
- March 26, 2019 order by Director General (Prisons), Delhi
- Key Provision
- Mandatory one-year watch period for convicts readmitted to jail before furlough eligibility
- Challenger
- Deepak Srivastav (convict)
- Conviction Details
- Convicted in 2003 for dowry death (2001); sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by Supreme Court.
- Readmission Date
- November 13, 2024 (after Supreme Court upheld conviction and sentence)