Mother sought seven days parole leave for her son detained under the Tamil Nadu preventive detention Act. Holding that only the State Government may grant leave under Section 15, and that courts cannot abridge or enlarge detention per Supreme Court precedent, the petition was dismissed.
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.
CRL MP(MD) NO. 18682 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL MP(MD) NO. 18682 of 2025
Petitioner(s) Vs
Prayer: To grant an Interim direction directing the 4th respondent to grant 7 days leave
(Parole) to the petitioners son namely Nitheesh Kumar son of Alagesan in PID.No.531324 in Detention order No.13/2025 dated 09..04.2025 in H.C.P(MD).No.1273 of 2025.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The present petition is not maintainable in view of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which gives prerogative only to the State Government to grant any leave.
Poonam Lata v. M.L.Wadhawan and others reported in 1987 (3) SCC 347 had stated as follows:
situation should be the sufficient period for a person to be detained for the purposes of the Act is one for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Preventive detention jurisprudence in this regard is very different from regular conviction followed by sentence that an accused is to suffer. Whether it be under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, the court would, therefore, have no jurisdiction either under the Act' or under the general principles of law or in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to deal with the duration of the period of detention.”
(C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.) (R.VIJAYAKUMAR J.) 28-11-2025
RR
To
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous petition can direct grant of parole leave to a detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and othersRelied on¶18
Poonam Lata v. M.L.Wadhawan and others reported in 1987 (3) SCC 347 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manimegalai W/o. Alagesan
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Theni District
State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Police Station
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Madurai
C.V. Karthikeyan
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
