WP CRL./2534/2026 of Sumathi Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department on 29 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This writ petition filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent/ prison authority in No.CP-PU1/2852/2026-R2 dated 21.08.2026, dismissing the application of the petitioner’s husband for grant of 28 days ordinary leave. The impugned order came to be passed on the ground that there is clear bar under the Rule 21(h)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, which prohibits the grant of ordinary leave to the prisoner convicted under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of narcotic and psychotropic substances.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing an order of this Court dated 20.07.2026 in W.P.Crl.No.1183 of 2026, stating that as a matter of right, the petitioner’s husband is entitled to the leave, since he has been undergoing incarceration nearly for 7 years.

4. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the entire materials.

5. The Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 itself stipulates that the leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is strictly a concession granted to a prisoner. It is also relevant to note that the Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 deals with non-eligibility for ordinary leave and Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 reads as follows: “21. Non-eligibility for ordinary leave.- The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for ordinary leave:

(a) Offenders classified as habituals;

(b) Prisoners sentenced under sections 392 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860);

(c) Prisoners where presence is considered dangerous or prejudicial to public peace and tranquility;

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

(d) Prisoners who are considered dangerous or who are involved in the following prison offences:-

(1) assault; (2) outbreak; (3) riot; (4) mutiny; (5) escape;

(6) instigation to serious violations of prison rules; (7) strike; (e) Prisoners committed to prisons in default of furnishing security to keep the peace or be of good behaviour; (f) Prisoners suffering from unsoundness of mind or contagious diseases. In such cases the eligibility shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the Medical Officer; (g) female pregnant prisoners, for having delivery outside the prison, constituting high security risk or cases of equivalent grave descriptions.

(h) restricts ordinary leave based on the specific heinous or dangerous nature of the crime for which the prisoner was convicted. The sub-clauses typically cover:

(1) : Prisoners convicted under certain specialized penal statutes such as Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act.

(2) : Prisoners convicted of offenses involving kidnapping for ransom (punishable under Section 364A of the IPC).

(3) : Prisoners convicted under the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act), particularly for possessing or smuggling commercial quantities of narcotic and psychotropic substances.”

6. Though, Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 deals with eligibility, duration and intervals of ordinary leave, after completion of certain period of imprisonment, whereas there is absolute bar under Rule 21 for grant of ordinary leave, particularly with regard to the prisoners, who have been convicted for the smuggling of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (under the NDPS Act).

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

7. The petitioner’s husband/ convict herein has been convicted under the NDPS Act. Therefore, once the law does not provide for grant of ordinary leave, as a matter of right, the learned counsel for the petitioner merely citing some order, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which have not gone into the rule position under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 is not acceptable.

8. Therefore we are of the view that, once legislation in its wisdom has extended the concession to only certain prisoners, who have not committed any heinous crime affecting the society, hence as a matter of right, leave cannot be claimed. Though, there is no bar for any prisoner in claiming emergency leave, whereas in this present case, the petitioner herein had insisted only ordinary leave for her husband/ convict.

9. In the light of above, we are of the view that merely on the basis of some orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, without going into the issue of the Rule position, the petitioner cannot insist for grant of ordinary leave. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner’s husband for grant of 28 days ordinary leave.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No stn

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai Range, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K. RAJASEKAR, J. stn W.P. Crl. No. 2534 of 2026 and W.P.M.P. Crl. No.940 of 2026 29-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 03:48:05 pm )