Case Note & Summary
Background: The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner, Eswarithai, was the wife of a life convict, Anthony @ Anthony Samy, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. She challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai, dated 21.02.2025, which denied ordinary leave without escort and instead granted leave with escort. Facts: The convict was serving a life sentence. The petitioner sought 28 days ordinary leave without escort for her husband under Rule 20(i) and Rule 22(2)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Amendment Rules, 2022. The second respondent, by order No.224/U.Tha.2/2024 dated 21.02.2025, rejected the request for unescorted leave. During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that reports from the jurisdictional police and the probation officer indicated that the life convict had told his relatives that he would not leave the persons who were the cause for his conviction. The reports also indicated that the convict's mother was in good health, hale and healthy, and carrying out her day-to-day activities. Therefore, leave had been granted with escort to avoid unwarranted incidents. The Additional Public Prosecutor also stated that the poverty certificate furnished by the petitioner would be duly considered, and if the Jail Manual permitted waiver of escort charges, it would be considered, but the circumstances warranted escort and the convict could not be granted leave without escort. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the petitioner's husband was entitled to ordinary leave without escort under Rule 20(i) and Rule 22(2)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Amendment Rules, 2022, and whether the impugned rejection order should be quashed. Arguments: The petitioner contended that the denial of unescorted leave was contrary to the said rules and sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order and direct grant of unescorted leave. The respondents contended that the police and probation reports disclosed potential retaliation by the convict and that escorts were necessary to prevent untoward incidents; the state further argued that the petitioner could seek waiver of escort charges if indigent, but not dispensation of escort. Court's Analysis: The court found that the impugned order was in consonance with the procedure established by law. It accepted the respondents' submission that the circumstances warranted escort. The court observed that if the life convict was not in a good financial position to meet the escort charges, he had to make a representation for waiver of escort charges, but could not seek to dispense with escort altogether. The court noted the report about the convict's statement regarding persons responsible for his conviction, which created safety concerns. Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no legal basis to quash the impugned order or to direct grant of unescorted ordinary leave. The petitioner's remedy, if any, is to make a representation for waiver of escort charges within the framework of the Jail Manual.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Ordinary Leave Without Escort - Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Amendment Rules, 2022, Rules 20(i) and 22(2)(C) - The petitioner sought quashing of rejection of unescorted leave for her convict husband and direction to grant 28 days ordinary leave without escort. The court noted the police and probation reports that the life convict told relatives he would not leave those responsible for his conviction, and his mother is healthy, so escort was warranted. Held that the impugned order was in consonance with procedure established by law, and a convict unable to afford escort charges must apply for waiver of escort charges, not dispensation of escort; writ dismissed (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the order denying ordinary leave without escort and to a direction granting 28 days ordinary leave without escort to her husband under Rule 20(i) and 22(2)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Amendment Rules, 2022
Final Decision
The writ petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2025 is upheld as being in consonance with the procedure established by law. The court observed that if the life convict cannot afford escort charges, he must make a representation for waiver of escort charges, not for dispensing with escort.
Law Points
- Leave without escort cannot be granted when police and probation reports indicate a threat and circumstances warrant escort
- impugned order in consonance with procedure established by law
- a convict unable to afford escort charges must seek waiver of escort charges
- not dispensation of escort
