In Brief
A man convicted of multiple murders had his death sentence commuted by the President to life imprisonment, but with the condition that he serve "the whole of his natural life without parole and without remission." He later applied for furlough—a temporary short leave granted to well-behaved long-term prisoners. The prison authorities and high court rejected his application, arguing that the "no remission" condition meant no furlough. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, holding that furlough is distinct from remission and parole. Furlough is an incentive for maintaining good conduct in prison, with the time counting towards the sentence. The presidential order did not expressly bar furlough, only remission and parole. The Court held that even a life prisoner must maintain good conduct standards, and such standards must have legal consequences—including potential furlough eligibility. The case was remitted for fresh consideration by prison authorities according to law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.