S.Anjali Vs The Inspector General of Prisons

PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records No.CP.PU1/2182/2025-R2 dated 18.07.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grand 28 days leave to the petitioners husband Senthil kumar S/o.Annamalai Aged 47 Years,

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP Crl. No. 759 of 2026

¶19

Convict Prisoner No.1709, (PID 34240 now confined in the Central Prison -1 Puzhal, Chennai - 66

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John Advocate

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

The challenge is to order dated 18.07.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of 40 days ordinary leave to her husband Senthil Kumar S/o Annamalai, (convict prisoner), confined in Central Prison -I, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶24

The reason assigned for rejection of leave is per Rule 21(i) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (in short ‘Rules’), which prescribes various circumstances for non-eligibility of ordinary leave. Rule 21(i) says that those prisoners who ‘may not report back to the prison after the completion of the leave period’ shall not be eligible for ordinary leave.

¶25

The apprehension stems from the fact that the convict who had been granted emergency leave between 11.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 had absconded and been secured only on 26.11.2021 after a gap of 7 years. It is based on such abscondance, that the authorities have invoked Rule 21(i), holding him ineligible for grant of ordinary leave.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP Crl. No. 759 of 2026

¶29

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also confirms that after the

¶30

detenu was secured on 26.11.2021, there has been no instance when the convict has availed leave at all, not even emergency leave.

¶31

In such circumstances, simply on human considerations, we are of the considered view that the petitioner’s application for leave to her husband must be considered positively. Certainly, it cannot be the intention of Rule 21 that the conditions thereunder should operate absolutely, so as to deny the prisoners leave under any circumstances at all. In our considered view, that would be a very perverse interpretation of the Rules. This is, however, not to say, that the authorities do not have discretion to reject the leave. However, such discretion must be exercised in a manner which is consistent with basic human rights.

¶32

In the present case, having regard to the fact that the convict has suffered a conviction on 04.04.2008, and had been incarcerated since then, and has not been released on leave from 26.11.2021, we are of the view that his abscondance for the period of 7 years cannot operate as a total ban on grant of leave during the period of conviction.

¶33

The authorities must take sufficient measures to balance the interests of the convict prisoner and the interest of the State and in this case, have failed to do so. In summation, we grant 10 days ordinary leave to the petitioner’s husband, however with escort.

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WP Crl. No. 759 of 2026

¶37