Furlough Rights for Life Imprisonment: Supreme Court Allows Furlough for Prisoner Despite No Remission: Atbir vs. State of NCT of Delhi (29 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 411
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a prisoner serving a life sentence without parole or remission still be eligible for furlough? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, focusing on the balance between punishment and reform. This case explores the rights of prisoners to maintain connections with society and the importance of good conduct, even when serving a life sentence.

Case Background

The appellant, Atbir, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for killing his step-mother, step-brother, and step-sister in 1996. He was initially sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 27 September 2004, which was confirmed by the High Court of Delhi on 13 January 2006. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence on 9 August 2010, describing the crime as falling within the ‘rarest of the rare category’.

Following the dismissal of his review and curative petitions, Atbir filed a mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The President of India commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment on 15 November 2012, with the condition that he would remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life without parole and without any remission. Despite this, Atbir applied for furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which was denied by the Director General of Prisons on 21 October 2019. The High Court of Delhi also dismissed his writ petition, citing that he was not entitled to any remission, and therefore, not eligible for furlough.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(h) of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000: Defines furlough as “leave as a reward granted to a convicted prisoner who has been sentenced to RI for 5 years or more and has undergone 3 years thereof.”
• Delhi Prison Rules, 2018: Chapter XIX of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, deals with parole and furlough.
  • Rule 1197: States that parole and furlough are progressive measures of correctional services.
  • Rule 1199: Defines furlough as a release for a short period of time as a motivation for good conduct, with the period spent on furlough counted towards the sentence.
  • Rule 1220: Specifies that a prisoner sentenced to 5 years or more of rigorous imprisonment, having served 3 years with an unblemished record, is eligible for furlough.
  • Rule 1223: Lists the criteria for furlough eligibility, including good conduct, earning rewards in the last 3 Annual good conduct reports, and not being a habitual offender.
  • Rule 1225: Provides specific parameters for prisoners convicted of heinous crimes like multiple murders.
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: Grants the President of India the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the order of the President of India dated 15 November 2012, which barred parole and remission, did not explicitly bar furlough.
• Furlough is a right for prisoners who maintain good conduct and should not be denied solely because the prisoner is serving a life sentence without remission.
• The term “Annual good conduct report” in Rule 1223(I) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, should not be equated with “Annual good conduct remission.” The appellant has maintained good conduct and has the last 3 Annual good conduct reports in his favor.
• Furlough is an incentive for good behavior and is distinct from remission. The appellant’s eligibility for furlough should not be affected by the fact that he is not eligible for remission.
• Denying furlough is contrary to the reformative approach of the prison system and infringes on the prisoner’s right to maintain his mental and physical well-being.
• The reliance on the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan & Ors. : (2016) 7 SCC 1 by the High Court was misplaced, as it pertains to remission and not furlough.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that furlough is a form of reduction in sentence, which is not permissible in this case due to the President’s order.
• Furlough is akin to remission and since the appellant is not entitled to any remission, he cannot be granted furlough.
• The respondent contended that Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, requires the prisoner to have earned rewards in the last 3 Annual good conduct reports, which is linked to the concept of remission, and since the appellant is not entitled to remission, he is not eligible for furlough.
• The respondent also relied on the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan : (2021) SCCOnLine SC 949, to argue that a prisoner does not have an absolute right to claim furlough.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, despite the bar on any remission in the term of imprisonment for the whole of his natural life.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2017) 15 SCC 55*: The Court clarified that the observation in this case that “furlough is granted as a good conduct remission” should not be interpreted to mean that remission is a prerequisite for furlough.
• State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan : (2021) SCCOnLine SC 949*: The Court acknowledged that furlough is not an absolute right, but emphasized that it should be considered for eligible prisoners.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan & Ors. : (2016) 7 SCC 1*: The Court found this case inapplicable to the issue of furlough in the present context.
• Section 2(h) of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000*: The Court used this definition to establish the meaning of furlough.
• Delhi Prison Rules, 2018*: The Court extensively relied on these rules to determine the eligibility criteria for furlough.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Reformative Justice: The Court emphasized the importance of a reformative approach in the prison system, stating that denying furlough would be counter-productive and an antithesis to this approach.
• Good Conduct: The Court highlighted that maintaining good conduct in prison should be incentivized, and furlough serves as such an incentive.
• Distinction between Furlough and Remission: The Court clearly distinguished between furlough and remission, stating that furlough is not a form of remission and should not be denied solely based on the lack of remission.
• Interpretation of Rules: The Court clarified that the requirement of “Annual good conduct report” is different from “Annual good conduct remission,” and that the former is sufficient for furlough eligibility.
• Presidential Order: The Court noted that the Presidential order only barred parole and remission, not furlough, and therefore, the appellant’s right to furlough should not be foreclosed.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court reasoned that:

• The High Court erred in assuming that remission is a prerequisite for furlough. The court stated, “In our view, the entitlement of furlough cannot be decided in the case of the present nature with reference to the question as to whether any remission would be available or not.”
• Furlough is not a form of remission but an incentive for good conduct. The court observed, “Even if he would spend some time on furlough, that will not come to his aid so as to seek remission because of the fact that he has to remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life. But that does not debar him from furlough if he is of good jail conduct and fulfils other eligibility requirements.”
• The Presidential order only barred parole and remission, not furlough. The court stated, “The presidential order dated 15.11.2012 bars parole as also remission but significantly, there is no mention of the treatment of entitlement towards furlough.”
• The requirement of “Annual good conduct report” in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, is distinct from “Annual good conduct remission.”
• Denying furlough would undermine the reformative approach of the prison system. The court observed, “depriving of even the concession of furlough and thereby taking away an incentive/motivation for good conduct would not only be counter-productive but would be an antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise running through the scheme of Rules of 2018.”

Key Takeaways

• Prisoners serving life sentences without parole or remission are still eligible for furlough if they maintain good conduct and meet other eligibility criteria.
• Furlough is an incentive for good behavior and is distinct from remission.
• The focus on reformative justice in the prison system is paramount.
• The interpretation of prison rules should be in favor of rehabilitation and good conduct.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The case of the appellant for grant of furlough be restored for reconsideration by the Director General of Prisons.
• A fresh report be requisitioned from the jail authorities.
• The Director General of Prisons should take a decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a prisoner serving a life sentence without parole or remission is still eligible for furlough if they maintain good conduct and meet other eligibility criteria under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. This decision clarifies that the denial of remission does not automatically disqualify a prisoner from being considered for furlough. This judgment reinforces the importance of reformative justice and incentivizing good conduct in prisons, even for those serving the most severe sentences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Atbir vs. State of NCT of Delhi clarifies that prisoners serving life sentences without parole or remission are still eligible for furlough if they maintain good conduct. This decision underscores the importance of reformative justice and incentivizing good behavior in prisons. The court emphasized that furlough is distinct from remission and should not be denied solely based on the lack of remission. This ruling ensures that prisoners have an opportunity to maintain connections with society and work towards rehabilitation, even while serving long sentences.