Facts
The petitioner challenged an order dated 17 March 2026 rejecting his application for his first spell of furlough. The rejection relied on a warning imposed on 10 December 2025 for misbehaving with a lady counsellor and treated that warning as making him ineligible for furlough until 10 December 2026.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The petitioner’s nominal roll recorded satisfactory conduct overall, apart from that warning; it also recorded that he had been released on furlough on seven previous occasions without misconduct during release.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 12–13The Court set aside the rejection and allowed the petition.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 14; p. 6, para. 16Issues
1. Whether a warning imposed as punishment could, by itself, disqualify the petitioner from furlough under Standing Order No. 01/2019.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3; p. 5, para. 102. Whether, in light of the petitioner’s conduct record and the furlough eligibility criteria under Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the rejection should be set aside and furlough granted.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 11–13Law Applied
The Court relied on the 7 June 2019 modification to Standing Order No. 01/2019, under which a warning issued to a convict was not to prevent furlough eligibility.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3; p. 3, para. 4Rule 1178 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides that prison offences punished only with a warning are not to be taken into account for annual good-conduct remission.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6Rules 1197 and 1200 identify the corrective and rehabilitative purposes of parole and furlough, including maintaining family and community ties and motivating good conduct.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Rule 1223 sets out furlough eligibility criteria, including good prison conduct and rewards, non-habitual-offender status, and Indian citizenship.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11The Court also relied on Pintu @ Bintu v. State of NCT of Delhi, Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi concerning the modification to the Standing Order, and Sunil Nayak v. State (NCT of Delhi) on the reformative purpose of furlough and the need to assess release applications consistently with that purpose.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–4; pp. 4–5, para. 8Reasoning
The rejection treated the warning as a standalone bar to furlough, despite the 2019 modification to the Standing Order and the DPR’s treatment of warnings, which the Court understood as not making a warning a ground to deny furlough.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–6; p. 5, para. 10That approach was inconsistent with the rehabilitative objectives of furlough.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–8The nominal roll showed satisfactory conduct apart from the warning, and the petitioner had previously completed seven furlough releases without recorded misconduct.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 12–13In those circumstances, the warning alone could not sustain the rejection.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 12–13Holding
The Court held that a warning could not be the sole reason for rejecting the furlough application and found the impugned order’s reasoning perverse and legally untenable.
It set aside the order dated 17 March 2026 and directed the petitioner’s release on furlough for 21 days from the date of actual release, subject to the usual terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 14–16Original Court PDF
Rishi RallanvsState Gnct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
