Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Janagi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General of Prison – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2417 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD).No.591 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Peer Mohammed
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Emergency leave requests must strictly adhere to grounds specified in Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
Headnote:The petitioner sought emergency leave for her son, convicted under the NDPS Act and imprisoned at Central Prison, Madurai, citing family marriage arrangements and her medical treatment needs. The Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 govern leave applications. The court found the stated grounds unavailable under the Rules, upholding the rejection of the representation dated 09.02.2026. The sole issue was whether the petitioner's grounds qualified for emergency leave under the Rules. The court reasoned that only specified grounds under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 permit such leave, and the petitioner's claims did not align. Writ petition disposed of, upholding the impugned order; future valid representations to be considered on merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges prison rejection of emergency leave for convict. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. grounds raised not available under tamil nadu prison leave rules. (Para 2 , 4) |
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent made in No.578/Tha.Ku.2/2026 dated 02.03.2026 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant emergency leave for thirty days to the petitioner's son, who is undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The petitioner's son is undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai, for the offence under the NDPS Act. A representation was made seeking for emergency leave on the ground that the convict has to make necessary arrangements to augment funds in order to undertake the marriage of the petitioner's daughter and in order to enable the petitioner to undergo medical treatment. The said representation came to be rejected by the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 02.03.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. In our considered view, the ground that has been raised by the petitioner seeking for emergency leave is not a ground that is available under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. Therefore, the second respondent has rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner. If at all any grounds that are available under the Rules is made out and a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondents on its own merits and in accordance with law.
