DINESH KUMAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of Clause 26.4 of the Parole/Furlough: Guidelines, 2010. These Guidelines are approved by the Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which are applicable in case of convicts i.e. those who have been convicted by a competent court under various laws and are undergoing sentencing in prison. The purpose of the Guidelines is to regulate applications for parole and furlough and to ensure that they are considered in a fair and transparent manner. Separate provisions for regular parole as well as furlough are made in these Guidelines. Insofar as grant of furlough is concerned which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, Clause 24 states that a prisoner who is sentenced to 5 years or more of rigorous imprisonment and has undergone imprisonment for 3 years or more period excluding remission, can be released on furlough. A prisoner is entitled 7 weeks of furlough in a year. The first spell can be of 3 weeks while the subsequent spells have to be of 2 weeks each. Clause 26.4 mentions eligibility conditions which a prisoner has to fulfill before he would be eligible to obtain furlough.

(2.) Clause 26, in toto, is reproduced as under:-

(3.) As is clear from Clause 26.4, any prisoner who has been convicted for an offence of robbery, dacoity, arson, kidnapping, abduction, rape and extortion is not eligible for grant of furlough. All the petitioners have been convicted of one or the other offences which is covered by Clause 26.4 and for this reason, having regard to the aforesaid Guidelines, they are not rendered ineligible for grant of furlough. According to the petitioners, this Clause is arbitrary and unreasonable and not based on any intelligible differentia and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that it violates fundamental right of the petitioner to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.