BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.592 of 2025

and

W.M.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.170 & 171 of 2025

Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,

O/o.The Principal Secretary to the Government,

Home (Prison IV) Department,

Secretariat, St. George fort,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,

O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

and Correctional Services,

Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus,

New Jail Road,

Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Central jail,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in G.O(D)No.835, dated 04.07.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and subsequently direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's brother namely Kumar @ Selvakumar, son of Aandi Mudhaliyar (LCP No.678 &

PIC.No.18021) permaturely.

For Petitioner : Mr.SMA.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 04.07.2025, thereby, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for premature release of the petitioner's brother.

2. The petitioner's brother Kumar @ Selvakumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.547 of 2018. While being so, the petitioner, who is the sister of the convict prisoner, submitted a representation seeking premature release of her brother by invoking the Government Order in G.O(Ms)No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 since her brother already had completed 10 years of imprisonment and as such, he is entitled for premature release. On receipt of the said representation, the first respondent considered the said representation and rejected the request made by the petitioner on the ground that G.O(Ms)No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 is not applicable to the convict and as per G.O.Ms.No.430, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2023 the convict is not entitled for premature release. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the first respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner seeking premature release of her brother without considering the report submitted by the third respondent. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15956 of 2024. This Court, by an order dated 02.01.2025 set aside the said rejection order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration by considering the report submitted by the third respondent herein. Once again, the request made by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent without considering the report submitted by the third respondent. In fact, as directed by this Court, the first respondent did not pass orders, within a time stipulated by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1398 of 2025. While pending contempt petition, in a hurried manner, the first respondent once again rejected the request made by the petitioner. That apart, the third respondent submitted a detailed report about the conduct of the convict and he recommended for premature release. Even then, without considering the same, the first respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner only for the reason that the petitioner approached this Court by way of contempt pe