Tamil Nadu prisoners serving over 14 years may take annual leave in two instalments within a year, Madras High Court clarifies

The petitioner, a 65-year-old convict confined at Puzhal Central Prison, sought 14 days’ ordinary leave without escort.

The authorities rejected his request, citing a pending criminal case, his previous abscondences while on leave, and the requirement under Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 that one year of imprisonment elapse after return from the last ordinary leave.

The pending case had since resulted in a conviction and sentence that the petitioner had served.

The petitioner challenged the refusal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner’s previous abscondences justified refusing ordinary leave when the five-year period specified in the relevant prison circular had expired.

2. Whether Rule 22(3) requires a one-year interval between two instalments of the 40 days’ annual ordinary leave available to eligible prisoners serving sentences exceeding 14 years or life.

3. Whether the impugned refusal should be set aside and 14 days’ ordinary leave granted.

Rule 22(1)(c) and Rule 22(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 provide that eligible prisoners serving sentences exceeding 14 years or life may receive ordinary leave of up to 40 days, with the proviso permitting that leave in one or two instalments; Rule 22(3) requires one year of imprisonment from return from the last ordinary leave before a subsequent spell.

The Court construed “spell” in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) as an “instalment,” distinct from “spell” in Rule 22(3). The two instalments must be taken within one year from the first day of the first instalment; the Rule 22(3) interval runs from the last day of the second instalment, or, if only one instalment is taken, from the last day of that leave.

Circular No. 26594/PS.4/2017 bars leave for five years following abscondence by a prisoner who faced or had faced proceedings under Section 224 IPC.

The Court also relied on Chinnathambi v. The Director General of Prisons, 2026:MHC:2182, for the principle that past abscondence cannot operate as a permanent bar to leave.

The Court held that the pending-case ground was no longer available because the petitioner had served the sentence imposed in that case.

His abscondences in 1997 and 2004 fell outside the circular’s five-year period, and he had subsequently availed leave without further abscondence or reported untoward conduct.

On Rule 22, the Court rejected the authorities’ interpretation that a one-year gap was required between the two instalments of annual leave: that reading would undermine the express permission to divide the 40 days into two instalments.

It therefore distinguished “instalment” under the proviso from “spell” under Rule 22(3) and clarified when the one-year interval begins.

He was directed to surrender by 10:00 a.m. on 27 October 2026, report to N3 Muthiyalpettai Police Station on alternate days during leave, and use the leave only for the purpose for which it was granted.