TN Sentence Suspension Rules| 40 Days Annual Ordinary Leave Can Be Availed By Prisoner In 2 Instalments Only Within 1 Year: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court was considering a Petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons to grant ordinary leave to a convict.
Madras HC, Justice Anita Sumanth, Justice Sunder Mohan
While explaining the scope of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, the Madras High Court has clarified that the period of 40 days annual ordinary leave may be availed by an eligible prisoner in two instalments only within one year from the first day of the first instalment of such leave.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to quash the same and consecutively direct the Deputy Inspector General of Prison to grant ordinary leave for 14 days without escort to the detenue, convict prisoner, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal.
The Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan held, “We further clarify that (i) the period of 40 days annual ordinary leave may be availed by an eligible prisoner in two instalments only within one year from the first day of the first instalment of such leave (ii) the spell of one year referred to in Rule 22(3) will apply from the last day of the second instalment, or if only one instalment of ordinary leave has been availed, from the expiry of one year from the last day of the first instalment of the leave.”
Advocate M.Ezhilarasu represented the Petitioner while Govt Counsel (Criminal Side) C.R.Malarvannan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a convict in Central Prison, Puzhal had sought ordinary leave of 14 days without escort. The petitioner’s conviction was confirmed in 2001 and he had been confined for over 18 years. The convict has availed total leave of 456 days of which 129 days fall in the category of Emergency Leave, and of the balance, 270 days had been granted by the authorities and 57 days by intervention of the Court, all without escort. This request was rejected on many grounds including the fact that the convict had a pending case and Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rules) is a bar for the grant of leave in such circumstances. It was further noticed that the convict had absconded in 1997 when he had been granted leave without escort and had been re-captured only in 2000. The request had been rejected by way of the impugned order and the writ petition was instituted challenging that order.
Reasoning
Dealing with the issue of bar under Rule 35, the Bench noted that the case had been decided vide a judgment dated July 2, 2026 wherein the prisoner had been convicted under Section 224 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 months of imprisonment. “This ground is hence no longer available to the respondents as the petitioner would have served out the sentence by now”, it stated.
The Bench next considered the issue of abscondence of the Petitioner and referred to a Circular No.26594/PS.4/2017. The Bench found that the bar against the grant of leave under the above Circular was effective for a period of 5 years from end of the date when the convict had gone absconding. The Bench noted that the abscondence was in 1997 and 2004, and the 5-year period set out in the Circular was gone in 2009.
“In fact, the Convict has been granted leave subsequently on several occasions both by the authorities as well as by the Court. That apart, there has been no attempt to abscond thereafter, and no untoward conduct reported by the authorities. We are hence of the considered view that the second ground is also of no avail to the authorities”, it added.
The Bench explained that Rule 22(1)(c) read with Rule 22(2)(c) entitles a prisoner, sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding 14 years and life, to 40 days leave per year, in two spells/instalments. “Interpreting the word ‘spell’ in Rule 22(2)(c) in the manner the respondents suggest would force the prisoner to avail the entire leave of 40 days in one stretch as otherwise, he would be constrained to suffer a gap of one year between the two installments”, it held.
The Bench thus held that the period of 40 days annual ordinary leave may be availed by an eligible prisoner in two instalments only within one year from the first day of the first instalment of such leave. Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench directed the Respondents to release the Convict Prisoner on Ordinary Leave for a period of 14 days.
Cause Title: S.Babu v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:4186)