A five-judge Bench of the Madras High Court recently permitted convicts to seek ordinary and emergency leave while their appeals against conviction are pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court [Sheefa Rani Vs State Secretary]
A five-judge Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justices CV Karthikeyan, AD Jagadish Chandira, M Nirmal Kumar and Sunder Mohan said that incarceration does not reduce fundamental rights to a “parchment promise.”
“Leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity that cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to the pendency of a judicial appeal,” the Court said.
The Bench passed the interim order while considering a reference on the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
The larger Bench was constituted due to conflicting views of co-ordinate Full Benches on whether leave under the 1982 Rules could be granted to prisoners whose appeals against conviction are pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
The Court was informed that the Supreme Court is presently considering the broader issue of parole, furlough and remission policies across States in Mukesh Kumar v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi).
Tamil Nadu has also been impleaded in that case. However, the High Court said that prisoners in the interim cannot be made to suffer because of the present legal uncertainty.
"Pending the resolution of the questions by this Larger Bench and the final decision of the Apex Court in the Mukesh Kumar case (supra), which is stated to govern the whole nation, a state of legal uncertainty cannot be allowed to prejudice the liberty of convict prisoners."
Accordingly, the Bench kept in abeyance an earlier direction issued on November 19, 2025, which restrained the High Court Registry from entertaining applications for ordinary or emergency leave under the 1982 Rules.
The Court directed the Registry to entertain such petitions in terms of the Full Bench decision in T Ramalakshmi v State.
It also directed prison authorities across Tamil Nadu to process applications for ordinary and emergency leave under the 1982 Rules and decide each case on its own merits.
“To deny the benefit of the 1982 Rules to the prisoners would be to ignore the explicit exclusionary boundary set by Rule 35 of the 1982 Rules,” the Court observed.
The Court also clarified that the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in KM Nanavati v State of Bombay cannot be treated as an automatic bar to considering leave applications under statutory prison rules.
It said Nanavati dealt with a peculiar situation where the Governor had suspended a sentence during the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court. That ruling, the High Court said, did not deal with temporary release under pre-existing statutory prison rules.
“The grant of leave for a temporary period, which can extend to a maximum of 40 days per annum, would not in any way interfere with the power of this Court or any appellate Court to grant or deny the suspension of sentence pending the appeal,” the Bench said.
Advocates R Sankarasubbu, M Radhakrishnan, R Muniyapparaj and Janardhanan appeared for petitioners.
State Public Prosecutor R John Sathyan appeared for the State along with Government Advocates CR Malarvannan and A Mohammed Imran.
Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam assisted the Court as amicus curiae, along with Advocate Thiruvadi Kumar.
[Read Order]