Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Thulasi – Appellant
Versus
The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1758 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.P.M.Basil
For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Rule 35 TN Suspension Rules bars prisoner leave due to pending/convicted jail offences reflecting poor conduct.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged proceedings rejecting ordinary leave for her husband, convicted under Sections 366A, 352 IPC and Section 10 r/w 9(g) POCSO Act, serving life imprisonment. Court noted three jail offences pending or convicted, including under Prison Act, NDPS Act. Rule 35 Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 bars leave due to pending cases. Issue: Whether to quash rejection of leave citing ineligibility under Rule 35. Ratio: Prison offences, including NDPS conviction, reflect poor conduct; Rule 35 prohibits leave with pending cases inside jail. Writ petition dismissed; no interference with rejection order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of ordinary leave for convicted prisoner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. pending and convicted jail offences justify ineligibility under rule 35. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court upholds rejection due to poor conduct and statutory bar. (Para 6 , 7) |
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent made in No/275/Utha.2/2026/(RO.MDU/275/2026-G2) dated 17.03.2026 and for a direction to the third respondent to grant 28 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband without escort.
2. The petitioner's husband was convicted for the offence under Sections 366 (A) and 352 and under Section 10 read with 9(g) of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is serving sentence at Central Jail, Palayamkottai.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent seeking for ordinary leave and the same came to be rejected through the impugned proceedings dated 17.03.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. On carefully going through the counter-affidavit, it is seen that three cases are pending against the petitioner's husband and all these cases arise out of offences committed inside the jail. The first case is now pending in STC.No.348 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, for the offence under Sections 42 and 45 of the Prison Act. The second case is pending in STC.No.5289 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli for the offence under Section 45 of the and Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act . The third case ended in conviction based on the order passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai on 10.04.2026.
5. In the light of the above conduct and behaviour on the part of the petitioner's husband, the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 17.03.2026, rejected the claim made citing the in- eligibility under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for dismissal of this petition.
6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
7. In the case in hand, the convict was punished for the offence under the POCSO Act and other offences. When he was serving sentence, he has indulged in committing three offences inside the jail, out of which one of the offence is under the NDPS Act and one case ended in conviction. Therefore, considering the conduct and behaviour on the part of the convict, the second respondent has rejected the request made by the petitioner seeking for ordinary leave.
