No mandamus under Article 226 to grant ordinary leave to ineligible convicts under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, as ordinary leave suspends sentence via subordinate legislation; cannot direct executive violation of statutory bars or per incuriam precedents.

ORDER :

1. These petitions raise a common question as to whether a mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be issued directing release of a convict prisoner on ordinary leave notwithstanding his ineligibility to avail such leave by virtue of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

2. W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1752 of 2026 has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in No.964/Utha. 2/2025, dated 22.09.2025 and for a consequential direction to the first and second respondents to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort, to the petitioner’s son, who was convicted for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the “Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985” (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity) by the Additional District Judge (E.C. Court), Pudukottai, in C.C.No.30 of 2022 and was sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 26.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.507 of 2023 and while confirming the conviction, this Court modified the sentence to five years by judgment dated 15.10.2025. Accordingly, the convict is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation seeking for 21 days ordinary leave without escort on the ground that the petitioner suffered from severe chest pain and he also suffers from various ailments and he has to take immediate treatment. For that purpose, an ancestral property must be sold to augment funds. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for 21 days ordinary leave without escort for his son.

4. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent through proceedings dated 22.09.2025 on the ground that, since the convict has been convicted for offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, there is a bar under Rule 21 (h)(3) of the “Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” in short) and the convict is not entitled for ordinary leave.

5. The other matter ie., W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1981 of 2026 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent made in No. 901/Utha.2/2025, dated 28.08.2025, wherein the convict is undergoing life sentence at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and a representation was made by the petitioner, who is the brother of the convict, on the ground that the sister of the convict is suffering from medical complications and she requires the physical and emotional support of the convict and also to arrange money to undergo treatment.

6. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 28.08.2025, has rejected the representation seeking for ordinary leave on the ground that the convict was convicted for offence under Section 396 of and there is a bar under Rule 21 (b) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

7. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.04.2026 and 17.04.2026, this Court expressed its mind to the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners that, when there is a specific bar under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be got ov