Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman, JJ
Babu – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by its 1. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Prison-IV) Department, The Secretariat of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009. – Respondent
WP Crl. No. 1105 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Manoharan
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
The government retains discretionary power to exempt individuals from statutory rules regarding prisoner leave based on case-specific circumstances.
Headnote:This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 19.08.2025, denying leave to a convict citing it is barred under Rule 21, however, under Rule 40, the Government retains discretionary power to grant exemptions. The Court found the Superintendent of Prison's authority to reject such leave unenforceable since only the Deputy Inspector General has the mandated power. Hence, the Court exercised its discretion and allowed the petitioner's request for leave for 21 days. The impugned order is quashed.
Result: 'The convict prisoner is granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days, without escort.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. medical condition warrants leave. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 2. similar cases have granted leave. (Para 3) |
| 3. discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
The order of rejecting the leave application passed by the third respondent vide proceeding No.11101/Tha.Ku.3/2025, dated 19.08.2025, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the convict prisoner is the elder brother of the petitioner. The convict prisoner is suffering from swelling in his legs, which is stated to have resulted from jaundice suffered about 15 years ago, and he now requires proper medical treatment.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's request shall not be treated as a specific case, and that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted leave in similar circumstances.
4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record carefully.
5. On perusal of Rule 21, it is seen that a person convicted under Section
395 IPC is not eligible for ordinary leave, there being a clear statutory bar. Though there is specific bar under Rule 21, the fact remains that under Rule 40, the Government has retained the discretionary power to exempt any person, or any class of persons, from the operation of any of the provisions of the Rules.
6. When the Government has retained such discretionary power, it is expected to exercise it properly, considering the nature of the case. The Government also has the power to relax the Rules in genuine cases and grant exemption to any person from all or any of the provisions contained therein. The conduct of the prisoner, the nature of the offence, and any serious or adverse cases pending against the prisoner can all be taken into account while exercising such power.
7. The orders have been routinely passed by the Superintendent of Prison when applications for ordinary leave, were filed. The Superintendent of Prison, however, is only a recommendatory authority. As per Rule 24(4), the order shall be passed only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of prisons.
8. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that such routine orders passed by the Superintendent of Prison cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Such orders should only be passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, as mandated under the Rules.
9. In any event, the Government has the power to exempt any person from all or any of the provisions of the Suspension of Sentence Rules. Such discretionary power can be exercised by the Government after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , this Court is inclined to grant leave for a period of 21 days to the convict. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed and the convict prisoner, viz.,Seenu @ Seenivasan, S/o. Mathanagiriyappa, CT PID No. 9896, confined at Central Prison, Salem, is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days,without escort, commencing from 01.11.2025 to 21.11.2025. The convict shall be released from the prison at 10.00 a.m on 01.11.2025 and he shall return back to the prison on or before 05.00 p.m. of 21.11.2025. During the period of leave, the prisoner shall report before theInspector of Police, E-2, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri District, twice a week i.e. Monday and Thursday, at 05.00 p.m. The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other illegal activities. This case shall not be treated as precedent. This order has been passed taking note of the batch of writ petitions posted on 06.11.2025 to decide the maintainability of such petitions.
11. Accordingly, t
