Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA
Paul Nadar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for premature release based on age. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. legal grounds for rejecting premature release. (Para 8 , 21) |
| 3. petitioner challenges the rejection reasons. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. judicial review of government orders. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. claims regarding eligibility for release considered by the court. (Para 15) |
| 6. discretionary power and eligibility criteria. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 7. court's decision on eligibility under specific sections. (Para 23) |
| 8. directing consideration of fresh representation. (Para 26 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
R. POORNIMA, J.
This petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024, filed this petition praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner namely, Paul Nadar (Male 81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict Prisoner No.418, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai/3rd respondent, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488, Home (
Premature release for life convicts can be granted based on age and time served but must consider Probation Officer's recommendations and eligibility criteria.
Premature release of life convicts requires completion of 20 years of imprisonment and consideration of law and order implications, as per relevant government guidelines.
The court established that the nature of the crime must be weighed against the convict's conduct and rehabilitation potential when considering premature release.
The court clarified that life convicts are eligible for premature release considerations, with proper compliance of procedural requirements, including set-off periods of incarceration during trial.
The court established that reliance on stale offences for denying premature release violates the principle against double jeopardy and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The court established that factual inaccuracies in the rejection of premature release applications undermine the decision, especially when supported by good conduct evidence.
Judicial review of executive decisions regarding premature release must consider both the nature of the crime and public safety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
