This High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of premature release for a convict. The Court quashed an order applying the wrong minimum service period, directing remission based on the correct 10-year requirement.
Impugned Order G.O.(D).No.1273 dated 03.11.2023 quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration within 6 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.No.2292 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2484 of 2024
Vanniya Raja
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by its, 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons, Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building, 2nd Tower, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District-627 002.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
in G.O.(D).No.1273, dated 03.11.2023 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to release the Convict / petitioner namely, Mr.Vanniya Raja, S/o.Karuppasamy who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J. )
The petitioner herein is a convict prisoner whose request for premature release has been rejected through the impugned order in G.O.(D).No.1273, dated 03.11.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prospector appearing for the respondents.
3. The reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's request is
that he had not served 14 years of imprisonment as prescribed in
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
Paragraph 2 (G) of G.O.Ms.No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021.
vs. Home Secretary (Prison-IV) and others passed in W.P.No.31099 of
2023, dated 11.01.2024 in the following manner:
"4. ................
.............. Insofar as the second reason assigned in the impugned order that the petitioner's remission would be premature as he has not completed 14 years in prison as on 15.08.2023 is concerned, this reasoning, seems to be a misconception of the facts. As a matter of fact, in Paragraph 5 of the impugned Government order itself, it is admitted that the petitioner has completed 11 years, 10 months and 9 days. The Regulation governing the premature release on this ground is under G.O.No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021, which prescribes the minimum period to be served as 10 years and not 14 years. While that being so, the second reason on which
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
the petitioner's request for his premature release also cannot be sustained for all the forgoing reasons."
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 16.02.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons, Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building, 2nd Tower, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.2292 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
W.P.No.2292 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2484 of 2024
16.02.2024
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of premature release based on non-completion of 14 years imprisonment was legally sustainable given the requirement under G.O.Ms.No.488 is only 10 years.
Whether the impugned government order misconstrued the relevant regulations governing premature release.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gunasekaran vs. Home Secretary (Prison-IV) and othersReferred¶32
Gunasekaran vs. Home Secretary (Prison-IV) and others, W.P.No.31099 of 2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vanniya Raja
The State represented by its, 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department
The Director General of Prisons
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Palayamkottai
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
