As per case facts, the Petitioner was convicted in 2008 for multiple offences, including life imprisonment for murder. The High Court later enhanced his sentence to 25 years of actual ... imprisonment without remission, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. After undergoing around 23 years of custody and maintaining good conduct, his application for first spell of furlough was rejected in October 2025 by the Jail Authority, citing his ineligibility for remission which is a prerequisite for furlough. A corrigendum was issued in December 2025 clarifying the rejection reason based on amended rules. The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging this rejection and the corrigendum, arguing the denial was arbitrary and that prior Supreme Court judgments supported furlough despite remission bar. The question arose whether the petitioner, sentenced to 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission, is eligible for furlough under the amended Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which require "Annual Good Conduct Remission" as a pre-condition, and whether relevant Supreme Court precedent applies despite the rule amendment. Finally, the High Court held that furlough is a discretionary relief governed by the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. It found that the petitioner's sentence, which explicitly excludes remission, makes him statutorily ineligible to earn the required "Annual Good Conduct Remission" under the amended Rule 1223(I). The Court distinguished previous judgments, concluding that the petitioner's claim of parity and reliance on earlier interpretations were misplaced. The writ petition was dismissed, as the Court found no arbitrariness or illegality in the rejection, affirming the petitioner's statutory ineligibility.