The authorities must consider previous court orders and the convict's compliance with leave conditions when deciding leave requests.

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel, accepts notice for R1 and R2 and has received instructions in full. Hence, by consent of both learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed finally even at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is the wife of one Alavutheen, who was sentenced to life imprisonment on 17.07.2014. In line with Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (in short ‘Rules’), the petitioner’s husband (convict) had sought leave which was granted on 28.04.2018, till 05.08.2018, for a period of six days (ordinary leave). He had availed the leave and thereafter absconded and not returned to the prison. He had been located and arrested by the police only on 13.10.2021 and has been detained in Central Prison, Chennai for continuance of the original sentence.

3. The convict thereafter sought ordinary leave of 3 days, and as the same was not considered, the petitioner had moved W.P.No.30132 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 16.10.2023, this Court had granted 3 days ordinary leave with police escort from 25.10.2023 to 27.10.2023. The leave has been availed and learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that there are unpaid dues of escort charges to be met by the convict.

4. In 2024, the convict’s request for leave of 21 days was again rejected by the authorities vide order dated 19.11.2024, as a result that the petitioner had moved W.P.No.36165 of 2024 seeking quash of order dated 19.11.2024 and directing the respondent to grant 21 days ordinary leave to her husband.

5. That Writ Petition was allowed on 09.12.2024, by this Court noting the health problems of the petitioner’s second son, and the fact that the presence of her husband was required in connection therewith. While granting leave, this Court imposed certain conditions, which we are given to understand, the convict had complied with.

6. In 2025, the convict’s request for 6 days emergency leave was rejected leading to the institution of W.P.(Crl.) No.1280 of 2025. By order dated 24.11.2025, the Court granted 6 days emergency leave without police escort from 01.12.2025 to 06.12.2025. This is the fourth instance where the request of the convict was rejected leading to the institution of the present Writ Petition by the convict’s wife.

7. On a perusal of impugned order dated 26.02.2026, we find that it has been passed referring, in vague terms, to the fact that the convict had absconded earlier. The rejection is in the teeth of interim developments when, based on the Courts orders, the convict has been granted leave on three occasions, the details of which are as follows:

(i) W.P.No.30132 of 2023 dated 16.10.2023 – 3 days ordinary leave with police escort – 25.10.2023 to 27.10.2023;

(ii) W.P.No.36165 of 2024 dated 09.12.2024 – 21 days ordinary leave without police escort – 13.12.2024 to 02.01.2025; and (iii) W.P.(Crl.) No.1280 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025 – 6 days emergency leave without police escort– 01.12.2025 to 06.12.2025

8. Mr.Muniyapparaj would accede to the position that the leave sought for now is in line with the scheme under Rule 22 of the Rules and the only reason is the track record of the convict.

9. We do not agree with the approach of the authorities in the present matter as it obliterates the orders passed by the Court in the interim, for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. The authorities cannot expect the petitioner/convict to file a Writ Petition year on year for the same relief. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had absconded in 2018. However, there had been three instances thereafter when he had sought leave, both ordinary and emergency, based on the medical history of his second son. Moreover, he has complied with the directions imposed by t