Disposed¶34

Sandhiya v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government

Madras HC12 Mar 2026WP Crl./539/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026 (Sandhiya v. State of Tamil Nadu and others), decided 12.03.2026. Keywords: premature release; convict prisoner; PID No.34363; representation dated 16.12.2025; G.O.(D) No.128 Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 02.02.2026; rejection of pre-mature release request; non-service of rejection order; inter-prison email dated 16.02.2026; Trichy Prison; Central Prison Puzhal; clear breach of duty; writ of mandamus; Article 226; costs Rs.5,000/-; liberty to challenge rejection order; prison administration; Tamil Nadu Home Department.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order dated 02.02.2026; costs of Rs.5,000/- directed to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents within two (2) weeks. ¶34

Sandhiya Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2025 seeking premature release of her husband (convict Sampath, PID No.34363) had been considered and disposed of by the respondents. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The convict's request for pre-mature release stood rejected by order dated 02.02.2026 (G.O.(D) No.128 Home (Prison-IV) Department); consequently nothing survives in the writ petition.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

There was a clear breach of duty by the authorities in failing to serve the rejection order dated 02.02.2026 on the convict and the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to institute the present petition.

¶33

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 02.02.2026, if she is so inclined.ratio¶34
The writ petition is closed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents within two weeks, reflecting the breach of duty found.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — mandamus sought directing respondents to consider representation dated 16.12.2025 for premature release of the petitioner's husband Sampath (S/o. Panner Selvam, aged about 62 years, PID No.34363, Convict Prisoner, Central Prison, Puzhal). During hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor produced G.O.(D) No.128, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 02.02.2026, rejecting the request for pre-mature release. An inter-prison email dated 16.02.2026 showed the rejection order emanated from Trichy Prison and was sent to Central Prison, Puzhal on 16.02.2026, yet it was never served on the convict or the petitioner, who therefore moved the Court by petition instituted on 27.02.2026 unaware of the rejection. The Court held there has been a clear breach of duty; nothing survived in the writ petition by virtue of the order dated 02.02.2026; the petition was closed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the respondents to the petitioner within two weeks, and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 02.02.2026. (Order authored by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J., bench comprising Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. and Sunder Mohan, J.)

¶1

2026:MHC:1058

¶2

W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 12.03.2026

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026

¶8

Sandhiya (aged about 50 years) W/o. Sampath, No.73/6, Venkateshpuram, New Colony Main Road, Kannigapuram, Chennai – 600 066.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director General of Police/

¶13

Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Service, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, 1, Puzhal, Chennai – 66. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.12.2025 made by the petitioner for premature release of the petitioner’s husband namely Sampath, S/o. Panner Selvam, aged about 62 years, PID No.34363, Convict Prisoner confined in Central Prison – 1, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066 within a reasonable period.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026

¶19

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Nadhiya

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶21

ORDER (Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her representation dated 16.12.2025 seeking premature release of petitioner’s husband Sampath, S/o. Panner Selvam, aged about 62 years, PID No.34363, Convict Prisoner, confined presently in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶23

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶24

appearing for the respondents produces a copy of G.O.(D) No.128 Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 02.02.2026 wherein the request of the convict prisoner for pre-mature release has been rejected.

¶25

There is yet another facet of the matter. The representation of the petitioner is dated 16.12.2025 and the order of rejection is dated 2.2.2026.

¶26

We had specifically requested Mr.Muniyapparaj to produce

¶27

proof of service of the rejection order on the convict as well as the wife / petitioner.

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026 5. Today an inter-prison email dated 16.02.2026 has been produced

¶31

before us to show that the rejection order has emanated from the Trichy Prison and has been thereafter sent to Central Prison, Puzhal on 16.02.2026. This does not answer the question as to why it was not served on the convict.

¶32

Though Mr.Muniyapparaj says that the it might have been supplied to the petitioner or the convict on 16.02.2026, there is no proof for the same. It has admittedly not been served on the petitioner.

¶33

In such circumstances, there has been a clear breach in duty resulting in the petitioner having to move this Court by way of the present petition instituted on 27.02.2026, as neither the petitioner nor the convict were aware of the rejection of the representation on 02.02.2026.

¶34

Nothing survives in this matter by virtue of order dated 02.02.206. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 02.02.2026, if she is so inclined. This Writ Petition is closed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents, within two (2) weeks from today.

¶35

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes sl/ssm

¶36

3/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P Crl No. 539 of 2026

¶39

¶40