JUDGMENT :

P.N. Prakash, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to grant leave for one month to the petitioner’s husband, viz., P. Nagendran, S/o Ponnusamy, aged about 54 years (serving as life convict no.1236) enabling to make arrangement to his son’s marriage.)

1. Seeking one month ordinary leave under Rule 20(4) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (for brevity “the Sentence Suspension Rules”), for her husband-convict prisoner P. Nagendran (CT No.7498) for him to make arrangements for their son’s marriage, his wife Visalakshi has filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. M.R. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner’s application dated 05.08.2021 seeking one month ordinary leave for the convict prisoner has been disposed of by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai, the third respondent herein, on 24.08.2021, stating that the said convict prisoner will not be entitled to ordinary leave, as he is facing prosecution in another case in P.R.C. No.10 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvellore, for the offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 120-B, 506(II), 307, 302 and 201 read with Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.

4. At this juncture, it may be relevant to extract Rules 3 and 35 of the Sentence Suspension Rules:

“3. Leave is not a right. - Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a concession granted to the prisoner.”

“35. Pending cases.-- No prisoner on whom a case is pending trial shall be granted leave.”

5. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is limpid that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is, after all, only a concession granted to the prisoner. It is also manifest that if a convict prisoner is in judicial custody in connection with another case, the executive authorities, viz., the Prison authorities in this case, are denuded of the power to release him on leave. Interestingly, this aspect has been dealt with in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Santhosam vs. State and 2 others [W.P. No.14685 of 2021 decided on 02.09.2021], in which, one of us (PNPJ), was a member. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are extracted below:

“12 The objective behind formulating the Sentence Suspension Rules is that a convict prisoner should not be dehumanized by being kept in complete incarceration, without being provided a ventilator for reformation. The idea of sentencing a person to undergo imprisonment is not only to punish him for the offence committed by him, but also to ensure that he turns a new leaf. One way of promoting reformation is to permit convict prisoners to go on leave, off and on, to spend time with their families and return to the prison rejuvenated. However, be it noted that a convict prisoner does not have a fundamental right, much less a right, for temporary release. Rule 3 of the Sentence Suspension Rules makes this clear when it states that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is only a concession granted to the prisoner.

13 In the aforesaid backdrop, we now propose to analyse Rule 35 of the Sentence Suspension Rules which reads as follows:

“35. Pending cases:

No prisoner on whom a case is pending trial shall be granted leave.”

14 What is the raison d’etre behind Rule 35 of the Sentence Suspension Rules?

15 If a convict prisoner has, to his credit, another criminal case in which he is facing trial, a duty is cast upon the prison authorities to produce him before the trial Court from time to time. This is limpid from Rule 832 of the Tamil Nadu Prisons Rules, which reads as under:

“832. Production before Court:-

(1) The duty of ascertaining the time at which a prisoner committed to the Sessions is to be produced before the Sessions Court, and of providi