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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Shanthi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2078 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Prabha
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

Minimum sentence period must be satisfied before ordinary leave can be granted to a convict.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave or emergency leave. Facts of the Case: A woman filed a writ petition to direct the prison authorities to grant leave to her husband who is serving sentence. The representation was rejected on the ground that the convict has not satisfied the minimum period required for granting ordinary leave.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent and the same is perfectly in line with the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

Issues: Whether the convict is entitled for grant of ordinary leave when the convict has undergone only 2 years, 3 months, and 24 days sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the convict is not entitled for grant of ordinary leave as he has not undergone the minimum period of sentence as per the rules. The court held that it is left open to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for emergency leave.

Result: This Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Table of Content
1. petition for writ of mandamus to grant leave to convict (Para 1 , 2)
2. court found no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings (Para 3)

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

This Writ Petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.03.2026, wherein the petitioner has sought ordinary leave for her husband, who is serving sentence at Central Prison, Trichy.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the proceedings dated 29.04.2026 issued by the first respondent. It is seen that the representation has been rejected on the ground that the convict has not satisfied the minimum period required for granting ordinary leave. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the convict has undergone sentence for 2 years, 3 months, and 24 days. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of ordinary leave.

3. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent and the same is perfectly in line with the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. In view of the same, it will be left open to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation seeking for emergency leave if a need so arises. If any emergency leave is sought for by the petitioner, the same will be considered by the first respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law.

4. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top