A prison warning cannot be the sole ground for denying furlough.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 4 August 2026 rejecting his application for a second spell of furlough.

The rejection relied on a warning imposed on 13 April 2026 for misbehaviour and referred to the petitioner’s conduct and annual good conduct reports.

The petitioner argued that a warning could not disqualify him under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (“DPR”) or the modified Standing Order No. 01/2019; he also noted that he had been granted a previous furlough spell in April 2026 despite the matter underlying the warning.

The petitioner had served 16 years, 4 months and 25 days and had previously received nine furlough spells since 2016.

1. Whether a prison warning could be relied upon as a ground to reject the petitioner’s application for a second furlough spell.

2. Whether the impugned rejection could stand when the respondent did not controvert the petitioner’s contention that the reasons stated were not an impediment to granting furlough.

The Court relied on the modification dated 7 June 2019 to Standing Order No. 01/2019, under which a warning issued to a convict does not bar furlough.

It also considered Rule 1178 of the DPR, whose explanation excludes prison offences punished only with a warning when assessing eligibility for annual good conduct remission.

Rules 1197 and 1200 describe furlough as a correctional measure intended, among other things, to sustain family and community ties, support the inmate’s well-being and encourage good conduct.

The Court referred to Pintu @ Bintu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025:DHC:1408; Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025:DHC:586; and Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025:DHC:5407, concerning the effect of the 2019 modification.

It also cited Sunil Nayak v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P. (Crl.) 398/2026, for the reformative purpose of parole and furlough and the need to assess such requests consistently with that purpose.

The impugned order relied on the 13 April 2026 warning as a reason to reject furlough, but the Court found that the 2019 modification to Standing Order No. 01/2019 prevented a warning from operating as a bar.

The DPR’s treatment of warnings for remission and its stated rehabilitative objectives further supported the conclusion that a warning could not, by itself, justify refusal of furlough.

The respondent did not dispute the petitioner’s submission that the reasons in the order could not impede furlough; the petitioner’s prior furlough grants and the length of time served were also noted.

The Court therefore held the stated reasoning legally untenable.

It directed the respondent to release the petitioner on furlough for two weeks, subject to the usual terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.