Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Pavun – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2429 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.C.Karthikeyan
For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Court cannot convert rejected ordinary leave application to emergency leave in writ jurisdiction; fresh representation required.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting ordinary leave for a convict under prison rules, seeking 21 days leave without escort. Relevant rules prohibit ordinary leave for convicts with less than one year served. The court found the rejection lawful as the convict had not met the one-year threshold. Issues framed: legality of rejecting ordinary leave and scope of judicial conversion to emergency leave. The court held it cannot convert ordinary leave to emergency leave beyond the writ's scope, directing fresh representation for emergency leave if applicable. Writ petition disposed without granting relief.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of ordinary prison leave. (Para 1) |
| 2. ordinary leave barred before one-year sentence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner seeks emergency leave conversion. (Para 4) |
| 4. court cannot convert leave type; fresh application needed. (Para 5) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent made in No.412/VuTha.2/2026, dated 21.04.2026 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant 21 days ordinary leave to the petitioner's son without police escort.
2 .Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the convict has served sentence only for a period exceeding one year. In view of the same, the Rules do not permit the grant of ordinary leave. Therefore, rightly, the third respondent has rejected the representation and refused to grant ordinary leave.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that considering the grounds raised, emergency leave can be granted to the convict.
5. In our considered view, we are testing the order passed by the third respondent and we find that the order is perfectly legal. While so, we cannot suo motu convert the ground on which ordinary leave has been sought for into emergency leave and exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That will go way beyond the scope of the present writ petition. Therefore, if there is a ground for emergency leave, a representation has to be made in that regard and that will be considered by the respondents on its own merits and in accordance with law. 6. This Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed in the above terms.
