Madras High Court Refuses Leave To Life Convict Seeking Child Through Fertility Treatment, Cites Stigma Child May Face

Dismissing a petition filed by the wife of the convict, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the court could not merely act upon the right of the convict's wife to have a child but also had to consider the interest of the child, which will have to carry the stigma throughout its life.

“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. In such a scenario, this Court cannot merely act upon the right that is claimed by the petitioner and ignore the interest of the child, which will carry such a stigma throughout its life,” the court observed.

Noting that it cannot turn a blind eye to the reality and had to consider the welfare of the child, the court said that it was worried about the consequences exerted on the child by society. The court also pointed out that the reformative theory was focused on the convict and did not deal with his/her desire to have a child. The court underlined that the convict or his wife did not have any right to place a child in an unfortunate position for the rest of its life.

“This Court cannot turn a blind eye to this reality and therefore, while balancing the right of the petitioner and the child, this Court is more concerned about the welfare of the child, to be born in this world and which will face the consequences psychologically exerted by the society for the heinous acts committed by the convict. 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. Neither the petitioner nor the convict will have the right to place the child in such an unfortunate position right through its life,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the convict's wife against an order of the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, rejecting his application for ordinary leave of 21 days. The convict was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on three counts by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Act Cases. This order was confirmed by the High Court in 2026. No appeal had been filed against the same, and thus the conviction and sentence had become final.

The wife submitted that she was desirous of having a child through the convict and for this, they had to undergo fertility treatment. It was submitted that, though an ordinary leave was sought, it was rejected.

Defending the rejection order, the authorities informed the court that the Probation Officer had not recommended leave because there might be a chance of a life threat to the convict and the possibility of a law-and-order problem.

When the court asked the wife if there was any provision that permitted the grant of ordinary leave for fertility treatment under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. To this, the counsel informed that though there was no specific ground under Rule 20, the right of the wife to bear the child through the convict must be considered by the court, and in such extraordinary circumstances, the court should pass appropriate orders.

To this, the authorities argued that leave could not be claimed as a right and it was only a privilege given to the convict under the relevant Rule. It was argued that unless the conditions in the rules were satisfied, ordinary leave could not be granted.

The court agreed with the authorities and noted that leave could not be claimed as a right. Noting that the court could not ignore the stigma that the child would have to go through, the court was not inclined to interfere with the order of the Superintendent and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Srikanth

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207

Case No: W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1695 of 2026