Ordinary leave under Suspension of Sentence Rules is a privilege, not a right, and requires statutory compliance; welfare of a prospective child outweighs parental desire for conception.

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in No.944/Ootha.2/2025 dated 11.09.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the convict. The convict underwent trial in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Act Cases and by judgment dated 05.08.2022, the convict was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on three counts. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court in Crl.A(MD) No.591 of 2022, by judgment dated 26.02.2026. As against the said judgment, no appeal has been filed before the Apex Court and hence, the conviction and sentence has become final.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents seeking for ordinary leave on the ground that the petitioner is desirous of having a child through the convict and that for this purpose, the petitioner has to undergo fertility treatment. Therefore, ordinary leave was sought for on this ground. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 11.09.2025 rejected the representation made by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the second respondent is extracted hereunder:

i) It is humbly submitted that the Probation Officer, Sivagangai, vide letter dated 03.09.2025 has given report stating that the reason sought for leave was true. But Probation Officer has not recommended leave because there may be chance of life threat of the prisoner and law and order problem may be arise if the prisoner is released on leave.

(ii) It is humbly submitted that Inspector of Police, Thiruppachetti Police Station has vehemently objected his leave since law and order problem may arise and there may be a chances of life threat for the prisoner as well as life threat of the victims if the prisoner is released on leave.

(iii) It is humbly submitted that based on the reports of the Probation Officer, Sivagangai and Inspector of Police, Thiruppachetti Police Station as proposal for the lave request of the prisoner was sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai vide this office letter No.3517/R2/2025, dated 11.09.2025 for order.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. We carefully considered the impugned order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner has sought for ordinary leave to the convict in order to undergo fertility treatment for the petitioner and the convict and to bear a child.

5. During the course of hearing, we had put a pointed question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the ground that has been raised by the petitioner seeking for ordinary leave is covered under Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The learned counsel submitted that even though no such specific ground is available under Rule 20, the right of the petitioner to bear a child through the convict has to be taken into consideration by this Court and therefore, under such extraordinary circumstances, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel, in order to substantiate the submission relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Abhaya V Venu Vs.State of