Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Sajitha – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Prisons – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1518 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Prakash
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Prisoner transferred to another state prison governed by receiving state's rules, not originating state's suspension rules.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the release of a life convict prisoner on ordinary leave for 40 days to attend family ceremonies, referencing Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and prison regulations under the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. The court noted the prisoner's conviction in S.C.No.141/2007 confirmed in Crl.A.(MD).No.124/2009 and his transfer to Kerala prison. The court determined that upon transfer, the detenu falls under the receiving prison's rules, rendering Tamil Nadu rules inapplicable. Issues framed included applicability of Tamil Nadu rules post-transfer and entitlement to ordinary leave under Rule 39. The ratio decidendi holds that transfer under the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 subjects the prisoner to the rules of the new prison jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of, leaving remedies open under Kerala prison rules.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ seeks ordinary leave for transferred life convict. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prison rejected emergency leave; ordinary leave dates specified. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioner relies on rule 39 for leave grant. (Para 5) |
| 4. transfer subjects prisoner to receiving prison's rules. (Para 6) |
| 5. petition disposed; pursue kerala remedies. (Para 7) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents for grant of ordinary leave to the detenu, who is confined at Poojapura Central Prison at Thiruvananthapuram.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.03.2026, this Court took into consideration the fact that the detenu was sentenced to life imprisonment by a judgment passed in S.C.No.141 of 2007 dated 21.04.2009 by the Sessions Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari and the conviction and sentence was thereafter confirmed by this Court in Crl.A. (MD).No.124 of 2009 dated 06.07.2010 and this judgment has become final. This Court also took into consideration the fact that the detenu was confined at Palayamkottai Central Prison and thereafter, was transferred to Central Prison, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram in the State of Kerala. In view of the same, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions as to whether the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, can be made applicable to the detenu.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the proceedings of the Superintendent of Prisons, Poojapura Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. It is seen that the request seeking for emergency leave has been rejected. The petitioner has also been informed that the detenu will be eligible to apply for 15 days ordinary leave on 09.05.2026 or 30 days of ordinary leave on 09.08.2026. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced the written instructions received from the Superintendent of Prisons, Poojapura.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 39 of the Rules and raised a ground that the respondents are entitled to grant ordinary leave to the detenu.
6. In our considered view, once the detenu has been transferred to the Poojapura Prison, Thiruvananthapuram under the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, the detenu gets into the jurisdiction of the Rules that governs the concerned prison and the Tamil Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 cannot be made applicable.
7. In view of the above, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Superintendent of Prisons, Poojapura Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram dated 26.02.2026, it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law. In the alternative, it is always left open to the petitioner to seek for ordinary leave as was indicated in the said Rules.
