Disposed¶33

N.Saroja v. The Director Inspector General of Prison

Madras HC10 Jul 2026WP Crl./1349/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ordinary leave rejection reconsidered — convict, life imprisonment, 14 years 3 months 14 days undergone, Central Prison Puzhal I; medical records not placed before authorities; representation dated 13.3.2026; direction to reconsider per extant Rules within one week; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; WP Crl. No. 1349 of 2026; Madras High Court; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition (Criminal) disposed in terms of the order: authorities directed to reconsider the representation dated 13.3.2026 after examining the forwarded medical records and pass orders per the extant Rules within one week; no costs; connected WPMP CRL. No. 458 of 2026 closed. ¶33

N.Saroja Vs The Director Inspector General of Prison — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 rejecting convict Karthick's application for 30 days' ordinary leave without escort should be quashed and the leave granted. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Government Advocate, on whom the medical records were served, shall forward them to the authorities to re-look into the representation dated 13.3.2026 and pass orders in line with the extant Rules within one week.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The medical records of the petitioner's mother accompanying the affidavit were not before the authorities, as the representation dated 13.3.2026 refers neither to the documents nor to any annexures.

¶30

Key takeaways

It is more appropriate for the authorities to apply their mind to the medical records and come to a considered view whether the reasons are true and whether leave is to be granted.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. authoring for the Bench of Dr. Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition (Crl.) under Article 226 filed by the mother of a life convict (undergone 14 years 3 months 14 days) in Central Prison, Puzhal I, who sought quashing of Order No.CP-PU1/1279/2026-R2 dated 29.04.2026 of the Superintendent rejecting his request for 30 days' ordinary leave without escort. Finding that the medical records annexed to the affidavit were never before the authorities — the representation dated 13.3.2026 referring to no documents or annexures — the Court declined to decide on truth of the grounds and instead directed the Government Advocate to forward the records so the authorities could re-look into the representation dated 13.3.2026 and pass orders in line with the extant Rules within one week. No costs; connected WPMP CRL. No. 458 of 2026 closed.

¶1

WP Crl. No. 1349 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

WP Crl. No. 1349 of 2026 AND WPMP CRL. NO. 458 OF 2026

¶9

N.Saroja W/o Nakkeeran, No.3/236, Pillaiyar Koil, 3rd Street, Nandambakkam, Periyar Nagar (Ex), Kundrathur, Kancheepuram – 600 069.

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The State Represented by its

¶13

The Director Inspector General of Prison Chennai Range, Egmore, Chennai – 600 066.

¶14

The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal I, Chennai – 600 066.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ or order or orders or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned order bearing No.CP-PU1/1279/2026-R2, dated 29.04.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 30 days without escort to the detenu, Karthick, S/o

¶17

__________ Page 1 of 5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP Crl. No. 1349 of 2026

¶20

Nakkeeran, aged about 39 years, convict No.9763, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal I Chennai.

¶21

For Petitioner(s):	Ms.P.Divya
For Respondent(s):	Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate
	(Criminal Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶24

The petitioner is the mother of Karthick (convict), who is lodged in

¶25

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. The convict was sentenced to life imprisonment and has presently undergone sentence of 14 years 3 months and 14 days. He had sought ordinary leave on the ground that his children’s education has to be attended to, he has to make arrangements for the family’s livelihood and his mother was unwell and was suffering from an eye ailment. His request has come to be rejected by way of the impugned order dated 29.4.2026, wherein, the authorities state that the reasons set out in the representation have been found to be untrue.

¶26

We have heard Ms.P.Divya, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents.

¶27

__________ Page 2 of 5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

WP Crl. No. 1349 of 2026

¶30

On a perusal of the documents accompanying the affidavit, we find some medical records of the petitioner’s mother. Admittedly, these medical records have not been placed before the authorities as representation dated 13.3.2026 does not either refer to the documents or to any annexures.

¶31

In such circumstances, we believe that it is more appropriate for the authorities to apply their mind to the medical records and then come to a considered view as to whether the reasons are true and as to whether leave is to be granted.

¶32

Since the medical records have been served upon the learned Government Advocate, let him forward them to the authorities to enable them to re-look into the petitioner’s representation dated 13.3.2026 and pass orders in line with the extant Rules, within a period of one (1) week from today.

¶33