Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Chellammal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.(Crl) No.1186 of 2026|W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.394 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Nadhiya
For the Respondents: R.Muniyapparaj

The court established that prison authorities should not adopt a hyper-technical approach that denies an eligible convict's request for ordinary leave solely because of a non-recommendation from a probation officer, especially when underlying conduct and duration of sentence justify the grant of leave.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order denying 28 days of ordinary leave to her son, a life convict. The prison authorities had rejected the request based on the lack of a formal recommendation from the Probation Officer, despite positive observations regarding the prisoner's conduct. The Court held that the authorities should not adopt a hyper-technical approach concerning the Probation Officer's report when the prisoner has already undergone over nine years of imprisonment. The main issue was whether the rejection of leave based on the Probation Officer’s subjective assessment of the stated reason for leave was justified. The Court reasoned that a literal or overly strict interpretation of the report should not supersede the eligibility for leave when there are no substantial concerns regarding the prisoner's conduct or security. The ratio indicates that prison authorities must exercise discretion reasonably and avoid obstructive stances in granting leave. The writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to grant twenty-eight days of ordinary leave to the convict without escort, subject to specific conditions regarding reporting and compliance with the Jail Manual.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving the convict's status and denial of leave. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's discretion in evaluating probation officer reports over technical compliance. (Para 3)
3. granting ordinary leave with specific regulatory conditions. (Para 4)

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J . )

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner’s son namely, Karuppu @ Karuppusamy, S/o.Muthurasu [PID No.42608], is undergoing life sentence in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (2 counts), 449, 404 and 381 of IPC. So far, he has undergone more than 9 years of imprisonment. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents seeking grant of 28 days ordinary leave. The said request was rejected on the ground that the Probation Officer has not recommended the convict prisoner’s case. Challenging the impugned order, the writ petition has been filed.

3. We went through the report of the Probation Officer. It is seen that even though the Probation Officer has endorsed the case of the petitioner almost in all aspects, the Probation Officer declined to recommend it on the ground that the reason cited by the writ petitioner was not correct. We are of the view that we need not take a strict view of the remand. Hence, the impugned order stands quashed.

4.We direct the respondents to grant twenty eight (28) days ordinary leave for the convict without escort.

5. The writ petition is allowed on the following conditions:~

(a) The convict-prisoner, Karuppu @ Karuppusamy, S/o.Muthurasu [PID No.42608], now detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is granted ordinary leave for twenty eight (28) days from 27.05.2026 to 23.06.2026 without escort.

(b) The convict prisoner shall be released from the prison at 05.00 p.m., on 26.05.2026 and he shall return to the prison at 10.00 a.m., on 24.06.2026.

(c) During the said leave period, he shall report before the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District, daily at 07.00 p.m., from

27.05.2026 onwards, without fail.

(d) During the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJChellammal – AppellantVersusState of Tamil Nadu – RespondentW.P.(Crl) No.1186 of 2026|W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.394 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, V.Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Chellammal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.(Crl) No.1186 of 2026|W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.394 of 2026