A prisoner who has exhausted ordinary leave is ineligible for an extension under Rule 22(3).

The petitioner sought a further 15 days’ leave for her husband, a life convict, whose 28-day ordinary leave had been granted by the High Court in an earlier proceeding.

He was required to surrender on 11 October 2026. The petitioner said the prisoner’s mother required continued medical care; the authorities had rejected her representation, stating that the ordinary leave had been exhausted and that extension was unavailable under Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules.

Whether the prisoner was entitled to an extension of ordinary leave after exhausting the leave granted to him

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s request warranted intervention by the Court

The Court considered Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules.

The respondents relied on that provision to submit that the Deputy Inspector General of Prison had no power to extend the leave period; the Court’s account of the rejection order records that the prisoner, having exhausted his ordinary leave, was not eligible for an extension.

The Court noted that the prisoner had received 28 days’ ordinary leave and was due to surrender on 11 October 2026.

It also recorded that the authorities had considered and rejected the representation on the basis that the leave had been exhausted and Rule 22(3) did not permit an extension.

Although the petitioner relied on the mother’s continuing medical needs, the Court found no merits in the petition and did not grant the requested extension.