Full Judgment Text
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1695 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.411 of 2026
Jalani ....... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Prisons and Correctional Services Department,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppachethi Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ...... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
nd
order passed by the 2 respondent in No.944/Ootha.2/2025 dated
st nd
11.09.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1 and 2
respondents to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the
petitioner's husband namely Muthumani, S/o.Ilangovan, (PID No.80957).
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent made in No.944/Ootha.2/2025 dated
11.09.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to
grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner's husband,
who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.
____________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
2. The petitioner is the wife of the convict. The convict underwent
trial in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Act Cases and by judgment dated 05.08.2022, the
convict was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on
three counts. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court
in Crl.A(MD) No.591 of 2022, by judgment dated 26.02.2026. As against
the said judgment, no appeal has been filed before the Apex Court and
hence, the conviction and sentence has become final.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents
seeking for ordinary leave on the ground that the petitioner is desirous of
having a child through the convict and that for this purpose, the petitioner
has to undergo fertility treatment. Therefore, ordinary leave was sought for
on this ground. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings
dated 11.09.2025 rejected the representation made by the petitioner and
aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this
Court. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken
by the second respondent is extracted hereunder:
____________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
i) It is humbly submitted that the Probation Officer,
Sivagangai, vide letter dated 03.09.2025 has given report
stating that the reason sought for leave was true. But
Probation Officer has not recommended leave because
there may be chance of life threat of the prisoner and law
and order problem may be arise if the prisoner is
released on leave.
(ii) It is humbly submitted that Inspector of Police,
Thiruppachetti Police Station has vehemently objected
his leave since law and order problem may arise and
there may be a chances of life threat for the prisoner as
well as life threat of the victims if the prisoner is released
on leave.
(iii) It is humbly submitted that based on the
reports of the Probation Officer, Sivagangai and
Inspector of Police, Thiruppachetti Police Station as
proposal for the lave request of the prisoner was sent to
the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai
Range, Madurai vide this office letter No.3517/R2/2025,
dated 11.09.2025 for order.
____________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. We
carefully considered the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
The petitioner has sought for ordinary leave to the convict in order to
undergo fertility treatment for the petitioner and the convict and to bear a
child.
5. During the course of hearing, we had put a pointed question to the
learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the ground that has been
raised by the petitioner seeking for ordinary leave is covered under Rule
20 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The learned
counsel submitted that even though no such specific ground is available
under Rule 20, the right of the petitioner to bear a child through the
convict has to be taken into consideration by this Court and therefore,
under such extraordinary circumstances, this Court can exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and pass appropriate
orders. The learned counsel, in order to substantiate the submission relied
upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Abhaya V Venu Vs.State
of Kerala in W.P.Crl.No.723 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023.
____________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982,
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is only a privilege that has
been given to the convict and therefore unless and otherwise the conditions
are satisfied under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982,
ordinary leave cannot be granted to the convict.
7. Admittedly, in this case, Rule 20, which deals with the grounds
for grant of ordinary leave, does not provide for granting ordinary leave to
enable the petitioner and / or the convict to undergo fertility treatment. As
was rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this
Court is not dealing with a right of the convict and at the best, what has
been granted under the Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 is only a
privilege and therefore, we have to necessarily satisfy ourselves that such
privilege is sought for in accordance with the requirements provided under
the Rules.
8. The convict and the petitioner want to have a child. In the order
that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the High
____________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
Court of Kerala has taken into consideration the desire expressed by the
wife and has proceeded to wriggle out of technicalities and permitted 15
days leave to the convict, to undergo the treatment. The Kerala High Court
also made it clear that this order cannot be cited as a precedent in every
case and that each case will be considered only based on the genuineness
of the claim made by the convict. In view of the same, the order relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken to be a
precedent.
9. In the case in hand, both the petitioner and the convict are
conveniently ignoring the right of a child, to be born. The child when it
enters this world will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life
convict, who is serving sentence for having committed a heinous crime
involving triple murder. In such a scenario, this Court cannot merely act
upon the right that is claimed by the petitioner and ignore the interest of
the child, which will carry such a stigma throughout its life. This Court
cannot turn a blind eye to this reality and therefore, while balancing the
right of the petitioner and the child, this Court is more concerned about the
welfare of the child, to be born in this world and which will face the
____________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
consequences psychologically exerted by the society for the heinous acts
committed by the convict. The theory of reformation is focused on the
convict and that has nothing to do with the desire of a convict to have a
child, which for no fault on its part is going to carry a stigma throughout
its life. Neither the petitioner nor the convict will have the right to place
the child in such an unfortunate position right through its life.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality
in the order passed by the second respondent and it does not warrant the
interference of this Court and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
costs.
[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
27.04.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Indu
____________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Prisons and Correctional Services Department,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppachethi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )
W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH , J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J .
Indu
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1695 of 2026
27.04.2026
____________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2026 12:10:42 pm )