Mother’s Son Held 200 Km Away: Madras HC Says His Madurai Transfer Request Will Get Priority Once Prison Space Opens

The petitioner, whose son was serving a ten-year sentence following conviction in a POCSO case, sought a direction under Article 226 to consider her representation and transfer him from Central Prison, Trichy, to Central Prison, Madurai.

She said she was a single woman and that the transfer had increased the distance to visit her son from about 20 kilometres to 200 kilometres.

The State submitted that Madurai was substantially overcrowded, while Trichy had available capacity, and that the transfer was temporary. It also stated that the prisoner had used video-call and telephone facilities and had received physical visits from relatives.

The Court was also provided information about overcrowding and measures proposed or underway to increase prison capacity.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the administrative principle that prisoner placement and transfer may be guided by prison capacity, administrative convenience, and prisoner welfare; transfers to other prisons may be necessary where prisons exceed authorised capacity.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was identified as the legal basis for deciding the requested transfer.

The judgment also referred to Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Others in connection with prison welfare measures, but not as the basis for its determination of the transfer request.

The Court accepted that Madurai Central Prison was operating beyond its authorised capacity and noted that overcrowding affected prisons elsewhere in the State as well.

It considered the State’s explanation that the transfer to Trichy was temporary and necessary for administrative convenience and prisoner welfare, together with the reported availability of contact facilities and the assurance that the petitioner’s request would receive priority once sufficient accommodation became available.

In those circumstances, the Court did not require an immediate transfer.

It recorded the State’s submission that the petitioner’s request would be considered on a priority basis, and that her son would be transferred to Madurai Central Prison when overcrowding was reduced and sufficient accommodation became available.