Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition by a convict serving a court-mandated 25-year term of actual imprisonment without remission for the 2002 killing of a business executive, seeking a 21-day first spell of furlough. The Court declined to interfere with prison authorities’ order rejecting the furlough request and a later corrigendum issued to align the rejection with the applicable eligibility requirement. It also noted that furlough remains a discretionary relief and does not operate as an enforceable right. On the facts, the Court held the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought and upheld the rejection and corrigendum.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of the first spell of furlough for 21 days and quashing of the rejection order dated 29th October, 2025 passed by the Jail Authority. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Division Bench enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment meaning 25 years of actual incarceration without consideration of remission, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with a modification regarding concurrency of sentences.

Also Read: Supreme Court Notifies New Senior Advocate Designation Guidelines, 2026; Point-System and Interviews Replaced with Consensus-Based Full Court Process

The petitioner earlier sought furlough which was dismissed in 2018 on the ground that good conduct remission was a prerequisite. Having undergone about 23 years of custody, the petitioner again sought furlough, which was rejected on 29th October, 2025. A corrigendum dated 01st December, 2025 clarified that eligibility required earning rewards in the last three Annual Good Conduct Remissions. The petitioner contended that denial was arbitrary and relied on Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The respondents contended that under the amended Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, earning three Annual Good Conduct Remissions was mandatory and the petitioner was statutorily ineligible due to the non-remittable sentence.

The Court observed, “Furlough is neither an absolute right nor a matter of course, it is a conditional, discretionary relief governed strictly by the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.” It recorded that “While furlough serves a reformative purpose, its grant is subject to statutory eligibility conditions and an overarching assessment of public safety, security, and the conduct of the convict.”

Referring to the petitioner’s sentence, the Court stated, “The statutory consequence of such a sentence, read with Rule 1171 of the DPR, 2018, is that all forms of remission stand excluded during the stipulated period.” It extracted Rule 1171 and noted, “If any statute or the court in its order of sentence has denied the remission to the prisoner and thereby not specified the kind of remission to be denied then all kinds of remission will be denied.”

On the applicability of the amended rules, the Court observed, “Rule 1223(I), as amended with effect from 16th June, 2020, unequivocally prescribes earning rewards in the last three Annual Good Conduct Remissions as a condition precedent for consideration of furlough.” It further recorded, “The petitioner admittedly cannot earn such remissions till his stipulated 25 years of actual imprisonment is undergone and therefore fails to satisfy the threshold eligibility under the applicable rule framework.”

With respect to the reliance on Atbir, the Court stated, “In Atbir (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was interpreting the pre-amendment Rule 1223(I)… The present case, however, is to be governed by the amended Rule 1223(I)… Consequently, the ratio of Atbir (supra) cannot be mechanically applied so as to dilute or override the clear and unambiguous mandate of the amended rule.”

On the corrigendum, it recorded, “The corrigendum merely corrects and aligns the impugned order with the amended and applicable rule position and does not amount to a substantive review or fresh adjudication.” The Court added, “The doctrine of functus officio has no application where the authority merely rectifies an apparent error to reflect the correct statutory provision.”

The Court also noted, “Even otherwise, eligibility for furlough does not translate into an enforceable right.” It observed that the discretion exercised by the authorities “cannot be termed perverse or irrational.”

Also Read: NI Act | Dropping Cheque Signatory From Accused List Does Not Bar Prosecution Against Company And Directors; Vicarious Liability And Presumptions To Be Decided At Trial: Delhi High Court

The Court concluded, “In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional rights in the impugned order dated 29th October, 2025 or the corrigendum dated 01st December, 2025. The petitioner is statutorily ineligible for furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, as amended in the year 2020 and, in any event, does not merit discretionary relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemendra, Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Shivam Tyagi, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, SPP for State with Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Mr. Ranjeeb Kamal Bora, Advocates for R-1 and R-2; Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Advocates for R-3; Mr. Sanchar Anand, Mr. Rajat Rathee, Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Mr. Pratimesh, Advocates for R-4

Case Title: Vikas Yadav v. The State NCT of Delhi Through Secretary & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1171
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3628/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja