Partly allowed

Manickam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Madras HC9 Jan 2026WP Crl.(MD)/109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court writ petition sought to quash an order directing a life convict on leave to report with escort due to the petitioner's inability to afford the cost. The Court modified the order by quashing the escort requirement and directing leave without escort.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing escort was quashed; convict allowed to go on ordinary leave without escort subject to usual police reporting conditions.

Manickam Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

Manickam

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range Central Prison, New Jail Road, Madurai.

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District ..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in No.948/Vu.tha.2/2025 dated 17.10.2025 and quash the same as bad in law and further direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband for the period of 40 days without escort who is a life convict namely Nadarajan, S/o. Perumal Pandi, (LCT.No.1154) by considering the representation dated 30.12.2025.

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.]

¶20

The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the

¶21

first respondent in No.948/Vu.tha.2/2025 dated 17.10.2025 and direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's husband for the period of 40 days without escort who is a life convict namely Nadarajan, S/o. Perumal Pandi, (LCT.No.1154) by considering the representation dated 30.12.2025.

¶22

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was convicted by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No.234 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the convict has also filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD) No.330 of 2009 and the same was confirmed by this Court on 08.07.2009. The convict has also preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner submitted an application seeking ordinary leave for a period of 40 days for her husband. After considering the request made by the petitioner, the first respondent granted 40 days ordinary leave to the convict

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶26

with escort. The petitioner, being a poor person, could not afford the cost of escort.

¶27

In view of the above, the condition imposed in the order dated 07.10.2025 directing the convict to go on ordinary leave with escort is modified

¶28

and the convict shall go on ordinary leave without escort. However, the convict is directed to comply with the usual conditions imposed by the jail authorities and he should also report before the Inspector of Police, Kalugumalai Police Station daily at 05.30 p.m. till the completion of leave period. He shall duly comply with the conditions and return to the prison on expiry of the leave period.

¶29

Accordingly, the order of the first respondent dated 17.10.2025

¶30

is quashed in sofar as the ordering escort alone and the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶31

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 09.01.2026

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav

¶33

Note: Issue order copy on 09.01.2026

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶37

To:

¶38

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range

¶39

Central Prison, New Jail Road, Madurai.

¶40

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District

¶42

4.The Inspector of Police Kalugmalai Police Station Thoothukudi District

¶43

The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶47

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

¶48

aav

¶49

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.109 of 2026

¶50

09.01.2026

¶51

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶52

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

Manickam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paneerselvam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Eswari Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Theivanai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariammal

Pushparaj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mohammed Ushen Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Cantonment