Adverse probation and police reports alone do not justify denying furlough to an eligible prisoner.

In brief

The question

Whether the rejection of the prisoner’s furlough request was justified in light of the statutory eligibility requirements and the reports concerning his conduct.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the second respondent’s order dated 10 September 2026, and directed the first respondent to grant the prisoner 60 days’ furlough without escort, subject to usual conditions.

It also directed

The prisoner was directed to surrender to the prison authorities on expiry of the furlough.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought 60 days’ furlough for her son, Karuppu @ Karuppusamy, a life convict confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

p. 2 · ¶ 1–3

The second respondent rejected the request on the basis of reports stating that the prisoner had not met his mother’s financial needs and that his release might cause apprehension among local residents.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The petitioner challenged that order, relying on the prisoner’s good prison conduct and his prior leave from 26 May to 24 June 2026, during which no adverse incident was reported.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4

The State accepted that his prison conduct was good and confirmed that no untoward incident occurred during the prior leave, but stated that the request had been rejected because the Probation Officer and local police reports were unfavourable.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the rejection of the prisoner’s furlough request was justified in light of the statutory eligibility requirements and the reports concerning his conduct.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–9

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction granting her son 60 days’ furlough.

p. 2, prayer · p. 5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Prisons (Release of Furlough) Rules, 2026 defines furlough as the release of a convict prisoner for a specified period after ten years’ incarceration, as a means of motivating good conduct and discipline.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

Rule 3(1) provides that a convict prisoner is eligible for furlough if the prisoner has completed ten years’ imprisonment and maintained satisfactory conduct during incarceration.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The petitioner also relied on Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 13 SCC 96, for the proposition that furlough should not be denied as a matter of course; the judgment records this submission but does not separately analyse or apply the precedent.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the prisoner’s behaviour and conduct in prison were good, a position accepted by the State, and that his earlier release on leave had passed without incident.

p. 5 · ¶ 5, 9

Applying the eligibility requirements in Rule 3, the Court concluded that the second respondent had no justification for rejecting the request on the basis of the adverse reports.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

It did not separately explain its treatment of the reports concerning the mother’s financial needs or local apprehension.