Landmark Ruling by Madras High Court on Convicts’ Temporary Release
In a significant legal development, a five-judge Bench of the Madras High Court has authorized convicts to apply for ordinary and emergency leave while their appeals against conviction are under consideration by the High Court or the Supreme Court. This decision was rendered in the case of Sheefa Rani Vs State Secretary, where Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, along with Justices CV Karthikeyan, AD Jagadish Chandira, M Nirmal Kumar, and Sunder Mohan, emphasized that imprisonment does not erase fundamental rights into mere theoretical promises.
According to the Court, granting leave and permitting temporary release are essential components of human dignity, which should not be indefinitely postponed due to ongoing judicial appeals. This interim order was issued while examining the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, especially in light of conflicting opinions from different Full Benches regarding the applicability of these rules to prisoners whose appeals are pending.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Consideration
The Court was aware that the Supreme Court is currently addressing broader issues related to parole, furlough, and remission policies across various states in the case of Mukesh Kumar v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), where Tamil Nadu is also a party. However, the Madras High Court asserted that the interim period of legal uncertainty should not unjustly affect the liberty of convicted prisoners.
“Pending the resolution of the issues by the Larger Bench and the ultimate decision by the Apex Court in the Mukesh Kumar case, which is anticipated to have national implications, legal ambiguity should not be allowed to negatively impact the freedom of convict prisoners,” the Court stated.
Abeyance of Previous Restrictions
In response, the Bench suspended an earlier order from November 19, 2025, which had prohibited the High Court Registry from accepting applications for ordinary or emergency leave under the 1982 Rules. The Court instructed the Registry to accept such petitions following the Full Bench’s ruling in T Ramalakshmi v State. Furthermore, it directed prison authorities throughout Tamil Nadu to evaluate applications for leave under the 1982 Rules based on individual merits.
More Read
The Court noted, “To deny the benefits of the 1982 Rules to prisoners would disregard the explicit exclusionary boundary established by Rule 35 of the 1982 Rules.” Additionally, the Court clarified that the Constitution Bench ruling in KM Nanavati v State of Bombay should not be seen as an automatic barrier to considering leave applications under existing statutory prison rules. The Nanavati case dealt with a unique situation involving the suspension of a sentence by the Governor during pending Supreme Court proceedings, which is distinct from temporary release under statutory prison rules.
The Bench concluded that granting temporary leave, which may extend up to 40 days annually, would not interfere with the authority of any appellate court to grant or refuse sentence suspension pending appeal.
Representing the petitioners were Advocates R Sankarasubbu, M Radhakrishnan, R Muniyapparaj, and Janardhanan. State Public Prosecutor R John Sathyan, alongside Government Advocates CR Malarvannan and A Mohammed Imran, appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, assisted by Advocate Thiruvadi Kumar, served as amicus curiae.
