Ordinary leave requires one-year gap post-return; emergency leave granted for family illness despite rejection, interpreting rules holistically.

JUDGMENT :

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner's brother, Gopi @ Sahaya Burono, is undergoing life sentence in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. He has so far spent 17 years in prison. He is entitled to 40 days' ordinary leave. The convict sought leave without escort. His request was rejected vide order dated 09.03.2026 by the second respondent. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3.It is not in dispute that the convict was given 20 days' ordinary leave from 24.12.2024 to 12.01.2025 and again from 24.05.2025 till 14.06.2025. The DIG of Prisons, Madurai Range invoked Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and rejected the request. According to the second respondent, the request of the convict is liable to be rejected as he has not completed one year of imprisonment from the date on which he returned from the last ordinary leave. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 is as follows :

“(3) The prisoner shall be granted the second or subsequent spell of ordinary leave not exceeding the period mentioned in sub rule (2) above, after the completion of one year of imprisonment from the date on which he returns from the last ordinary leave.''

In our view, the second part of the above sub-rule is unambiguous. The petitioner’s counsel is unable to fault the stand taken by the second respondent. We sustain the impugned order. However, the case on hand falls within Rule 6 which provides for grant of emergency leave in case of serious illness of one’s mother. The petitioner had averred in her affidavit that their mother is seriously ill and hence the convict has to be with her. Hence, we direct the third respondent to grant emergency leave to the convict Gopi @ Sahaya Burono.

4.However, we have to express our surprise as to how ordinary leave was granted to the convict from 24.05.2025 till 14.06.2025. In the impugned order, there is a reference to WP(MD)Crl. No.30516 of 2024. Incidentally, it is by this very bench. But the order is dated 19.12.2024 and pertains to grant of leave from 23.12.2024 till 13.01.2025. The reference given in the impugned order is wrong and we would call upon the DIG, Prisons, Madurai Range to be careful while drafting his proceedings. Any reference found in an official order must be factually accurate. Opinions may be wrong, views may turn out to be incorrect. But there cannot be any laxity when citing facts. When sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 makes it clear that there has to be a one year gap between two spells of ordinary leave, we fail to understand as to how the prisoner could have been granted ordinary leave from 24.05.2025 when he had returned from his previous spell of ordinary leave on 13.01.2025. This is a matter that has to be explained by the office of the second respondent. Let a copy of this order be marked to the first respondent.

5.Rule 22(1) and (2) are as follows :

“22. Eligibility for ordinary leave.- (1) No prisoner shall be granted ordinary leave unless he has been sentenced by a court in this State to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life for an offence against any law other than a law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union Government extends and he has completed.-

(a) one year of imprisonment in cases of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years;

(b) two years of imprisonment in cases of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding five years but not more than fourteen years;

(c) three years of imprisonment in cases of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding fourteen years and for life. Explanation.- The period of actual imprisonment shall be counted from