The Delhi High Court granted the benefit of remission under Delhi Prison Rules 2018


Date of Decision: 05.07.2023

EX.P. 109/2019



Delhi High Court granted the benefit of remission under Delhi Prison Rules 2018 and held that a plain reading of rules would show that rule 1175 defines the eligibility for remission and it has defined the term “Convicted prisoner” which would include both civil as well as criminal prisoners.

Facts of the Case

In brief, this Court found the applicant guilty of contempt of court for disobeying instructions and the undertaking made in an order dated 24.05.2019, taking into account the facts of the case and particularly the applicant’s behaviour to the knowledgeable Arbitrator. The petitioner was ordered by the court to pay the decree holder an amount of Rs. 5.05 crores, or the value of the missing machinery and equipment. Further instructions said that the applicant would face a three-month sentence of civil jail if the aforementioned sum was not paid within six weeks.

By means of CONT.APP. (C)15/2019, the aforementioned order was contested before the Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed by decision dated 26.11.2019, to which a S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 665 of 2020 was filed in response. This claim was also rejected, but the deadline for depositing the money was extended by orders dated 11.11.2022 and 15.12.2022. After then, on January 13, 2023, a Review Petition No. 12/2023 submitted to the Division Bench was likewise dismissed.

On March 29, 2023, the court ordered the petitioner to appear and serve three months of civil incarceration in accordance with the decision dated May 25, 2019, noting that he had neglected to deposit the sum of Rs. 5.05 crores. According to reports, the applicant turned himself in on April 10, 2023, and has been incarcerated since.

Analysis of the case

The order dated 24.05.2019 was issued in response to a petition brought under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Punishment for disobedience and noncompliance with the court’s order is the outcome of the civil contempt proceedings under the Act. The procedures differ from execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure in that the Court must expressly satisfy it and record a finding that the disobedience was deliberate and purposeful in the contempt proceedings.

In Sections 3(2), (3), and (4) of The Prisons Act of 1894, the terms “criminal prisoner,” “convicted criminal prisoner,” and “civil prisoner” are defined. the terms “civil prisoners,” “convicted criminal prisoners,” and “criminal prisoner” are likewise defined in the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 (Delhi Act No. 2 of 2002), and they are identical to those used in The Prisons Act, 1984. The Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (hence referred to as the “Rules”) were created by the government of the NCT of Delhi in accordance with its authority under Section 71 of The Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.

Court held, one of the most prized elements of the Indian Constitution is personal freedom. and its infringement cannot occur except in line with the law and in accordance with its provisions, as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is commonly known that a legal process cannot be capricious, unjust, or irrational.

This Court believes that a straightforward interpretation of the aforementioned Rules would demonstrate that the term “convicted prisoner” is used when describing eligibility for remission in Rule 1175. This phrase is comprehensive and makes no distinction between a “criminal prisoner” and a “civil prisoner” who has been found guilty. Although there is no specific provision for remission in Chapter XXXIII of the Rules that apply to civil prisoners, this does not indicate that Rule 1175 of the Rules is no longer relevant to the petitioner. Additionally, Rule 1176 does not specifically exclude civil prisoners. This Court thus believes that the aforementioned definition and rule apply to both types of convicts. Additionally, the claim that the petitioner has not been awarded a substantive sentence is equally fallacious as the applicant has been convicted and punished with substantive sentence of detention in civil prison for three months and as such, he is eligible for remission in terms of Rule 1175(1).

Thus the court allowed the application and directed the Superintendent to provide the applicant or contestant with the benefit of remission in accordance with the relevant Rules.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement


Madras High Court grants One week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner.

CASE TITLE: Saranya Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Chennai Range, Chennai and The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

Date of Decision: 16th June 2023



Citation:    W.P.No.17740 of 2023


The Petition filed by Saranya D/o: Thiru V. Ashok kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 15 days ordinary leave enabling the petitioner’s father Ashok Kumar, son of Viswanathan, male, aged 63 years, convict prisoner No.9826, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai to attend naming ceremony of his grand child and also to take medical treatment to his ailment.


The Convict Thiru.V.Ashok Kumar, son of Thiru.Viswanathan, aged 63 years was trailed before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai and he was acquitted by the trail court on 31.07.2013 and an Appeal was preferred by state and the Madras High Court reversed the judgement of trail court and convicted him on 24.02.2023. The convict prisoner was convicted inter-alia under Section 7 of ‘The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/.

The convict prisoner is now serving sentence; that the convict prisoner’s daughter (writ petitioner) sent a representation dated 08.06.2023 to the respondents seeking 15 days ordinary leave on two grounds; that one ground is the cradle ceremony (name giving ceremony) of the petitioner’s child i.e., convict prisoner’s grand child on 15.06.2023 and the other ground is ill-health of the convict prisoner and taking native treatment for the same at home.


  • Can the Court grant leave to the Convict prisoners before completion of 1 year imprisonment?
  • Can the court issue writ Mandamus to direct the prison authorities to leave the convict prisoner?


Learned Prosecutor adverted to Rules 22 and 21 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 submitted that the
sentence itself is for one year and therefore Rule 22(1)(a) is an
impediment for grant of ordinary leave.

As the lone objection of the learned Prosecutor turning on Rule 22 (1)(a) of said Rules does not cut ice with us owing to sentences added upto 18 months as alluded to supra, The Court found that this is an appropriate case to grant one week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner. We also notice that the name giving ceremony/function was held on 15.06.2023 and therefore the convict prisoner will have the benefit of being with his grand child over the week end and can also take suitable native treatment at home for his ailments.

Though Rule 22 (1) (a) of said Rules may not present a problem in the manner in which it was projected before court, it may still pose a problem as the convict prisoner has not completed one year of imprisonment.

Therefore, The court deemed it appropriate to exempt the convict prisoner from this provision by exercising our constitutional powers.  

The court granted leave by imposing few conditions:

  • The convict prisoner shall surrender to the prison authority i.e., Central Prison, Puzhal – I, Chennai on 26.06.2023 in the evening before dusk e., by 05.30 p.m.
  • The convict prisoner shall present himself every day of leave and sign in a suitable register in the jurisdictional police station the jurisdictional police station is Thirumullaivoyal Police Station.
  • The convict prisoner shall stay in his daughter’s house at No.10, Gayathri Nagar, School Street, Ayapakkam, Thiruvallur District 600 077 during the leave period.


The Court granted leave for the convict prison by using its constitutional power and directed the prison authorities to leave him by issuing the writ of mandamus, this order will not serve as a precedent for all and every case and cases of this nature have to be dealt with on case to case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the Madras High court sanctioned the leave for the convict prison by using Constitutional powers.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


click here to view Judgement