SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ
Mari Selvi – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2079 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Vignesh
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Writ court cannot interfere with trial court's prison transfer direction under NDPS Act; separate jurisdiction for trial delays.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition challenges an order under Article 226 refusing prison transfer due to trial court directions in an NDPS Act case (C.C.No.76 of 2025). Facts involve prior representation rejected and husband's detention in Madurai Central Prison for expeditious trial. Court finds no illegality in complying with trial court's transfer directive. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether writ court can interfere with trial court's prison transfer order. Ratio: High Court under Article 226 cannot override trial court directions for prisoner transfer; separate remedy needed for trial delays. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed without costs, no transfer direction issued.

Table of Content
1. challenges rejection of prison transfer request. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. prior petition closed; trial court ordered transfer. (Para 2)
3. writ court cannot override trial court directions. (Para 5)
4. petition disposed; seek trial progress separately. (Para 6)

This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the

4th respondent made in No.5613/Tha.Ku.3/2026, dated 05.02.2026 and for a direction to the respondents to transfer the petitioner's husband from Madurai Central Prison to Palayamkottai Central Prison or Perurani District Jail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. It is seen from the records that earlier the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.Crl.(MD) No.608 of 2026 for a direction to the respondents to transfer her husband from Madurai Central Prison to Palayamkottai Central Prison based on the representation made on 21.01.2026. This Writ Petition came to be closed by an order dated 06.02.2026 in the following terms:

Pending Writ Petition, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by an order dated 05.02.2026. Further, the husband of the petitioner is also facing trial for offence under Section NDPS Act case before the District Court, Madurai.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 05.02.2026, wherein the request made by the petitioner has been rejected.

5. On carefully going through the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 05.02.2026, it is seen that such transfer of prisoner had taken place pursuant to the directions issued by the Trial Court, where the NDPS case is pending in C.C.No.76 of 2025. In the light of such a direction issued by the Court, the 4th respondent had to necessarily comply with the said direction. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such a direction issued by the Trial Court and hence, we find that the order passed by the 4th respondent does not suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband was transferred to Central Prison, Madurai only on the ground that the trial must be completed expeditiously. However, one of the accused person is absconding and till date, he was not able to be secured and the petitioner's husband is languishing in the jail for more than 6 months.

6. The above ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that there is no progress in the trial and as a result, the petitioner's husband is languishing in jail, the petitioner has to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction and seek for necessary directions. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this Writ Petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top