Case at a glance: The Madras High Court has granted 14 days' ordinary leave to a 65-year-old life convict and clarified that the 40-day annual leave entitlement under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules can be taken in up to two instalments. It held that past abscondence cannot be held against a convict for all time and that a ground based on a pending case no longer applied.
The petitioner, convicted in 1992, had served over 18 years at Central Prison, Puzhal, and had availed 456 days of leave without escort. In July 2026 his request for 14 days' ordinary leave was refused on three grounds: a pending case, past abscondence in 1997 and 2004, and the one-year gap rule in Rule 22(3).
The pending case had in fact been decided earlier in July 2026, with a short sentence he would already have served.
The Key Question Before the Court
Were the grounds for refusing ordinary leave valid, and how should “spell” in Rule 22 be read?
Reading the Leave Rules Purposively
The pending-case ground no longer applied. On abscondence, the 2017 circular's bar ran for five years from the date of absconding and had long expired; following Chinnathambi v. DGP Prisons, abscondence cannot be held against a convict for all time, especially after several later leaves without incident.
On Rule 22, the authorities read “spell” to require the 40-day entitlement to be taken in one stretch. The Court held this defeats the purpose of the entitlement: “spell” in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) means “instalment”; the 40 days may be taken in at most two instalments within one year of the first instalment's start; and the Rule 22(3) one-year interval runs from the end of the second instalment, or one year after the first if only one is taken.
What the Court Actually Held
- 14 days' leave without escort granted from 13 to 26 October 2026, with surrender before 10 a.m. on 27 October.
- The petitioner must report at the police station on alternate days.
- Leave is to be used only for the stated purpose.
- Rule 22 clarified: up to two instalments within a year.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies a recurring point in Tamil Nadu prison leave rules.
- It limits the lasting effect of past abscondence.
- It applies a purposive reading to welfare provisions for prisoners.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Prisoners' Counsel
- Check whether refusal grounds are current and time-limited.
- Rely on the instalment reading of Rule 22.
For Prison Authorities
- Apply the two-instalment rule and the five-year abscondence bar correctly.
Key Takeaways
- Pending-case ground had lapsed.
- Abscondence is not a permanent bar.
- “Spell” means instalment.
- 14 days' leave granted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. Into at most two instalments within one year of the first instalment's start.
No. The circular's bar ran for five years, and abscondence cannot be held against a convict for all time.
From the end of the second instalment, or one year after the first if only one is taken.
Conclusion
The judgment gives practical clarity to prison leave rules while balancing security concerns.
Practical takeaway: Tamil Nadu convicts may take their annual ordinary leave in two instalments, and stale grounds cannot justify refusal.