Delhi High Court Stresses Compassion And Understanding In Granting Furlough, Upholding Human Dignity Behind Bars

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of avoiding rigid and mechanical interpretations of the provision of furlough in prison rules. She noted that such interpretations could detract from the true purpose and efficacy of this “benevolent provision” intended for the welfare of prisoners. Instead, she underscored the need for competent authorities to adopt more flexible and compassionate approaches to ensure that furlough serves its intended purpose effectively.

“The Courts must be compassionate to ensure that the solitude of prison cells does not adversely affect the mental well-being of a prisoner and that the path of their rehabilitation is not derailed under the pretext of their reformation being inconsequential,” the court said.

The court acknowledged Rule 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules, which delineates the objectives of releasing a prisoner on parole and furlough, as a meticulously crafted provision by the drafting committee, reflecting caution and foresight.

Highlighting the importance of empathy and understanding, the court emphasized that it is through these qualities that the depth and sincerity of furlough provisions can be truly appreciated. Such an approach ensures that justice is administered with fairness and humanity at its core.

“The provision of furlough stands as a constructive hope for individuals amidst incarceration. It offers a glimmer of opportunity for temporary release, allowing individuals to reconnect with their families, seek medical treatment, or pursue rehabilitation programs. Furlough provides a chance for prisoners to rebuild connections, maintain a sense of normalcy, and foster hope for a brighter future beyond the confines of prison walls,” it said.

Justice Sharma made these remarks while granting furlough to a man serving a life sentence following a conviction in a POCSO case. The individual had been found guilty under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The convict expressed remorse for his actions and asserted that he had undergone a process of self-reformation. He also stated that he was employed in the jail canteen and regularly sent his earnings to support his family.

The court observed that the convict met the criteria outlined in Rule 1223 to be eligible for furlough, including displaying good conduct in prison, obtaining three annual good conduct reports, not being a habitual offender, and being a citizen of India.

“The petitioner is working as canteen sahayak, he has been in judicial custody for almost 10 years without remission, as per nominal roll placed on record. During emergency parole granted to him, he had surrendered in time and, therefore, to reject furlough application simply on the ground that he was involved in heinous offence would defeat the very purpose for which the provision was enacted,” the court said.

Also Read: High Court Orders Release of Accused in UAPA Case, Cautions Against Assumptions Based on Material Accessed