Premature release criteria and the Governor's power under Article 161 are constrained once the petitioner completes the mandatory 14-year imprisonment period and the recommendation by the Council of Ministers is provided.

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (D) No.666, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 30.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to treat the petitioner, namely, Dinesh @ Dineshkumar. s/o Ganesan (C.P.No.5204) as having become eligible for the premature release by G.O.(Ms).No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and set him at liberty forthwith.

O R D E R

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

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No.666, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 30.05.2025 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to grant premature release to the petitioner, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC by the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.110 of 2007 by judgment dated 29.04.2011. The Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.(MD).No.192 of 2013 came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 13.06.2014 and thereby, the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed.

3. In view of the above, the petitioner was undergoing sentence and the petitioner had completed 10 years, 3 months and 13 days of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2021. According to the petitioner, he satisfied the eligibility criteria under G.O.(Ms).No.488, Home (Prison0IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and therefore, he was entitled for premature release. In view of the same, a representation was made and a recommendation was also made for the premature release of the petitioner by the Government. However, when the files were placed before his Excellency the Governor, the file was returned back with an endorsement that the request for premature release can be considered after completion of 14 years of imprisonment. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent passed G.O.(D).No.1202 dated 17.10.2023 rejecting the premature release.

4. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.28524 of 2023 challenging the rejection order and the same was also allowed before this Court by setting aside the rejection order on 01.08.2024. The matter was remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to consider the claim by applying the relevant Government Order and pass orders as expeditiously as possible.

5. Pursuant to the above direction, the first respondent reconsidered the case and recommended for the premature release which was also approved by the Council of Ministers. The file was forwarded to his Excellency the Governor. Once again, the file was returned on the ground that there is nothing extraordinary that warrants the premature release before the completion of 14 years sentence. Based on the same, the first respondent through the impugned proceedings rejected the request made by the petitioner for premature release. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have take a stand that his Excellency the Governor has returned the file with an endorsement to the effect that the claim for premature release can be considered after the mandatory period of 14 years and the same was taken into consideration by the Government and the request of the petitioner for premature release was rejected. It is further stated that the power under Article 161 of the constituti