Prison authorities must address medical emergency grounds for leave before considering pending cases, ensuring application of mind per Prison Rules.

(Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to grant emergency leave without police escort to the petitioner's husband, who is presently serving life sentence at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, based on the representation dated 26.03.2026.

2. The petitioner's husband is a life convict, who is presently serving sentence at Palayamkottai Central Prison. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.03.2026 seeking emergency leave on the ground that the detenu's mother is facing a serious health ailment and she requires an immediate operation for which the detenu has to arrange for funds and he must also give his emotional support. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 02.04.2026, wherein the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there are two pending cases against the detenu.

4. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and carefully went through the order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

5. The petitioner had sought for emergency leave by assigning a specific reason to the effect that the mother of the detenu is facing serious health ailment and she requires immediate hospitalization to undergo surgery. The proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 02.04.2026 does not even make a mention about this fact based on which emergency leave has been sought for. The 2^nd respondent has cited two pending cases and based on the same, the representation has been rejected. This clearly reflects non application of mind on the part of the

2^nd respondent.

6. We were able to see this pattern in many of the orders passed where a convict is seeking for emergency leave on a particular ground, the authorities are expected to deal with the ground on which the emergency leave is sought for and ascertain factually whether such ground raised is true or otherwise. Only upon considering the same, the authorities can go into the other issue regarding pending cases. We, therefore, expect that the authorities will keep in mind this observation made while dealing with the representations given seeking for emergency leave.

7. In the case in hand, a certificate has been issued by GM Hospital, Tirunelveli District to the effect that the mother of the detenu requires hospitalization and immediate treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a growth in the uterus and it has to be assessed that it is malignant and in such an event, the detenu's mother must undergo an operation. The ground that has been raised by the detenu is clearly a ground that is available under the Prison Rules. Hence, we are inclined to grant six days emergency leave to the detenu to take care of his mother and to arrange for the funds for the medical treatment.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated

02.04.2026 stands set aside and there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to grant emergency leave to the detenu from 06.04.2026 10.00 a.m., to 11.04.2026 till 5.00 p.m. During the entire period of emergency leave, the detenu shall report before the Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District, daily at 6.00 p.m. Apart from that condition, the detenu is permitted to execute the sureties before the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai, instead of executing the sureties before the Tahsildar and two sureties shall be the family members