Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, brother of the convict prisoner Arulmurugan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, rejecting the convict's application for 28 days ordinary leave. The convict had been in actual imprisonment for about 8 years. The leave application was rejected on the ground that the reason stated in the application (mother's treatment) was found incorrect by the Probation Officer upon enquiry. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the conduct of the prisoner inside the prison was satisfactory. The court noted that despite the incorrect reason, the Probation Officer's report was favourable, and the prisoner's conduct was satisfactory. The court, exercising its powers under Article 226, granted ordinary leave for 21 days without escort from 11.01.2025 to 31.01.2025, subject to conditions including reporting to the Inspector of Police twice a week. The court directed the respondents to release the convict on 11.01.2025 at 10.00 am and surrender on 31.01.2025 at 05.00 pm.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Grant of Ordinary Leave to Convict Prisoner - The court considered a writ petition challenging the rejection of leave application by the Superintendent of Prison. The Probation Officer reported that the reason for leave (mother's treatment) was incorrect. However, the prisoner's conduct inside prison was satisfactory. The court, invoking Article 226, granted 21 days ordinary leave without escort, subject to conditions, holding that the favourable recommendation of the Probation Officer and satisfactory conduct warranted the grant of leave (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the convict prisoner's leave application by the Superintendent of Prison on the ground that the reason stated in the application was found incorrect by the Probation Officer is sustainable, and whether the court can grant ordinary leave under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and granted ordinary leave for 21 days without escort from 11.01.2025 to 31.01.2025, subject to conditions including reporting to the Inspector of Police twice a week.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- ordinary leave for convict prisoners
- rejection of leave application based on incorrect reason
- probation officer's report
- satisfactory conduct of prisoner
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 515
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Ms.S.Nadhiya, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai Range, Prison Head Quarters, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of ordinary leave application for a convict prisoner.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 23.11.2024 rejecting leave and direction to grant 28 days ordinary leave for the convict prisoner Arulmurugan.
Filing Reason
The Superintendent of Prison rejected the convict's leave application on the ground that the reason stated (mother's treatment) was found incorrect by the Probation Officer.
Previous Decisions
The leave application was rejected by the Superintendent of Prison vide proceedings No. 92853/ tha.ku.3/ 2024 dated 23.11.2024.
Issues
Whether the rejection of leave application based on incorrect reason is sustainable when the prisoner's conduct is satisfactory and probation report is favourable?
Whether the court can grant ordinary leave under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the leave application was rejected despite the prisoner's satisfactory conduct.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prisoner is eligible for only 21 days ordinary leave and that his conduct inside prison was satisfactory.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that despite the incorrect reason in the leave application, the favourable recommendation of the Probation Officer and the satisfactory conduct of the prisoner inside prison warrant the grant of ordinary leave under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The rejection of the leave application by Superintendent of Prison in proceedings No. 92853/ tha.ku.3/ 2024 dated 23.11.2024, is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings.
In view of the favourable recommendation of the Probation Officer, we are inclined to invoke our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby granting required leave to the convict prisoner herein.
Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Arulmurugan, S/o.Periyanna aged about 32 years, Convict Prisoner, Convict No.733, Central Prison, Salem., is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 21 days, without escort commencing from 11.01.2025 on the following conditions.
Procedural History
The convict prisoner Arulmurugan applied for ordinary leave. The Superintendent of Prison rejected the application on 23.11.2024. The petitioner, brother of the convict, filed W.P.No.38866 of 2024 before the Madras High Court under Article 226 challenging the rejection. The court heard the matter and passed the order on 07.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
