Ordinary Leave For Prisoners: Courts Shouldn't Entertain Premature Pleas, Must Allow Competent Authority To Exercise Power: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has remarked against High Courts entertaining premature petitions for ordinary leave of prisoners. The court noted that the competent authorities must be allowed to take a decision by following due procedure as per the statutory time limit provided under the Act. “The practice of filing premature writ petitions need not be entertained by the High Court unless there is an extraordinary circumstances. In normal course, the competent Authorities must be allowed to take a decision in accordance with the Rules and in the event of rejection, the cause would arise for the purpose of instituting writ proceedings. The practice of filing writ petition even before the expiry of the statutory period provided to the Authorities need not be entertained by the High Court,” the court said. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar also observed that the authorities were duty-bound to follow the time limits stipulated in the rules and process the applications for ordinary leave. The court added that any lapse, on the part of the authorities, must be viewed as a dereliction of duty and disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer. The court stressed that the prison authorities should protect the rights of the prisoners. “The Authorities failing in their duties to perform the statutory obligations are to be viewed seriously. Such lapses are to be construed as official lapses, dereliction of duty and negligence warranting disciplinary action against the Officials concerned. The right of the prisoners is to be protected by the Prison Authorities. Therefore, adhering of the Rules in its strict sense are mandatory,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by Usha seeking directions to the Director General of Police (IG of Prisons) and the Superintendent of Vellore Central Prison to grant 28 days of ordinary leave to her husband Karthi. The court noted that as per Tamil Nadu Suspension of Rules 1982, the petition for ordinary leave was to be submitted by the prisoner or their relative to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisoners through the Superintendent of Police. The court noted that per the rules, the leave petition should be disposed of within 28 days of receipt and without unnecessary delay. The order on the leave petition must be a speaking order and in case of rejection, the reasons must be listed. In the present case, the court noted that the application seeking leave was filed on June 27, 2024 and the writ petition was filed on July 15, 2024 even before the expiry of the statutory period provided under the Act. Thus, the court noted that the petition was a premature one. However, since the application was rejected during the pendency of the case, the court took an exception and directed the authorities to grant ordinary leave. The court made it clear that writ petitions filed before the expiry of the statutory time limit of 28 days need not be entertained and only when a rejection order is passed, the cause arises for instituting the writ petition. The court directed the DG to issue instructions to all Subordinate Prison Authorities asking them to ensure that decisions on the leave applications are taken within a period of 28 days. The court also made it clear that failure to comply with the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules would be construed as a lapse, dereliction of duty, or negligence and appropriate disciplinary action would be initiated against the officer. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.S.Nadhiya Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 340 Case Title: Usha v The Director General of Police and Another Case No: W.P.No.20596 of 2024Click here to read/download the judgment

Ordinary Leave For Prisoners: Courts Shouldn't Entertain Premature Pleas, Must Allow Competent Authority To Exercise Power: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags