E-Paper
HC: Punishments affecting furlough rights must follow due process
The court was dealing with a petition filed by an inmate, challenging Tihar jail superintendent’s June 2023 decision of halting canteen facilities for seven days as a punishment, after a mobile phone was seized from a window cavity in the barrack that accommodated six inmate
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has ruled that any punishment affecting a convict’s furlough or remission eligibility must follow due process, cautioning that such actions could not be based on “presumptions” or “vague suspicion”.
“Even within prison discipline, the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed in the rules must be observed, particularly where a punishment has severe consequences or may affect statutory benefits, such as remission or furlough. A major punishment, carrying such consequences, cannot be sustained merely on presumptions or general suspicion,” the bench of justice Sanjeev Narula said in an order dated October 15.
The court was dealing with a petition filed by an inmate, challenging Tihar jail superintendent’s June 2023 decision of halting canteen facilities for seven days as a punishment, after a mobile phone was seized from a window cavity in the barrack that accommodated six inmates.
In his petition, argued by advocate Uday Chauhan, the man contended that the decision constituted a “major punishment,” which, under the law, could be imposed only after following the due procedure. However, he argued, the authorities had imposed it without adhering to the required process.
He further stated that the punishment had adversely affected his statutory right to apply for furlough, and was imposed despite the absence of any material evidence linking him to the mobile phone.
Tihar jail’s lawyer opposed the petition, saying the punishment was imposed following a due procedure.
Ruling in favour of the convict, the bench quashed the punishment ticket, noting that the order contained no conclusive finding that identified the owner of the seized phone, nor any evidence directly linking the device to the petitioner.
The court observed that imposing punishment on all inmates of the barrack without establishing individual culpability amounted to “collective penalisation”, a practice inconsistent with the principles of fairness and proportionality.
