Prisoners convicted of commercial-quantity NDPS offences are ineligible for ordinary leave under Rule 21(h)(3).

The petitioner sought 28 days’ ordinary leave for her husband, Muthurasa, a convict imprisoned for an offence under the NDPS Act.

The prison authority rejected the application on 21 August 2026, relying on Rule 21(h)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, which it treated as barring ordinary leave for prisoners convicted in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic or psychotropic substances.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226, relying on a coordinate Bench order and stating that her husband had been incarcerated for nearly seven years.

1. Whether a prisoner convicted under the NDPS Act in a case involving a commercial quantity is eligible for ordinary leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

2. Whether the petitioner’s reliance on a coordinate Bench order and the prisoner’s period of incarceration justified setting aside the rejection of ordinary leave.

Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 provides that leave is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Rule 21 sets out categories of prisoners ineligible for ordinary leave; the Court read Rule 21(h)(3) as barring ordinary leave for prisoners convicted under the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantities.

Rule 22 concerns eligibility, duration and intervals for ordinary leave, but, in the Court’s view, does not displace the Rule 21 bar.

The Court also observed that emergency leave was not barred, but the petitioner had sought only ordinary leave.

The Court held that the petitioner’s husband’s NDPS conviction brought him within the category barred from ordinary leave under Rule 21(h)(3).

His period of incarceration and the cited coordinate Bench order did not establish an entitlement to leave: the Court considered that order inapplicable because it had not examined the relevant rule position.

Since the application sought ordinary leave, the Court did not grant relief on the separate possibility of emergency leave.

The connected writ miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.