The Madras High Court recently rejected a plea by a murder convict seeking release from prison for 21 days so that his wife could undergo fertility treatment to have a child with him [Jalani Vs Deputy Inspector General of Prisons]..A Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan said that the wife and the convict were ignoring the rights of the child to be born. The Court said the child would have to live with the stigma of being born to a life convict sentenced in a triple murder case.“The child when it enters this world will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life convict, who is serving sentence for having committed a heinous crime involving triple murder,” the Court observed..The Court was hearing a petition filed by Jalani, wife of convict Muthumani lodged in Madura's Central Prison.Muthumani was convicted by a special court under SC/ST Act on August 5, 2022. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on three counts. The High Court confirmed his conviction and sentence on February 26, 2026. No appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and therefore, the conviction became final.Jalani moved the High Court seeking 21 days’ ordinary leave for her husband without escort. She said that she wished to have a child through him and had to undergo fertility treatment for that purpose.The prison authorities rejected the request on September 11, 2025. This was challenged before the High Court.The State opposed the plea and argued that leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 could not be claimed as a matter of right. It is only a privilege and could be granted only if the conditions under the Rules were satisfied, it was contended..The authorities also relied on reports from the probation officer and the police. The probation officer said the reason cited for leave was true, but did not recommend release since there could be a life threat to the prisoner and a law and order problem. The police also objected to his release, citing possible threats to the prisoner and the victims.The court accepted this view. .The Bench said that while balancing the right claimed by the petitioner and the interest of the child, it was more concerned about the welfare of the child.“The theory of reformation is focused on the convict and that has nothing to do with the desire of a convict to have a child, which for no fault on its part is going to carry a stigma throughout its life,” the Court said.It added that neither the petitioner nor the convict have the right to place the child in such an unfortunate position throughout its life.The Court found no illegality in the prison authority’s decision and dismissed the petition..Advocate S Srikanth appeared for the petitioner..Additional Public Prosecutor A Thiruvadi Kumar appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]
