A significant precedent has been set by the Madras High Court in affirming that the recommendation of a probation officer, coupled with a history of compliant prior leave, can override speculative police objections to granting ordinary leave to life convicts - even those convicted under the POCSO Act. The judgment reinforces procedural fairness and the principle that restrictions on liberty must be grounded in concrete risk, not mere apprehension.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Selvaraj, S/o. Samuvel, aged about 48 years, is a convict serving a life sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He applied for ordinary leave of 28 days without police escort, as permitted under the Jail Manual. The request was rejected by the 1st respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coimbatore Range, on 11.12.2025, on the ground that the police had raised objections citing a potential threat to the victim.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- He has served a substantial period of incarceration since his conviction.
- He was previously granted ordinary leave twice by orders of this Court: on 25.04.2024 (in W.P.No.9244 of 2024) and on 25.04.2025 (in W.P.No.10425 of 2025).
- During both prior leaves, no incident or violation was reported.
- The Probation Officer assigned to his case recommended the grant of the requested 28-day leave.
- The police objection was not supported by any specific intelligence, threat assessment, or prior misconduct during previous leaves.
- The petitioner has maintained a compliant record during incarceration.
Procedural History
- 11.12.2025: Impugned order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the leave application.
- 01.04.2026: Writ Petition (WP Crl. No. 695 of 2026) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- 01.04.2026: Court heard arguments and disposed of the petition at the admission stage by consent of both parties.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 and a direction to grant 28 days of ordinary leave without police escort, subject to reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the apprehension of a threat to the victim, unsupported by evidence or prior conduct, can justify the denial of statutorily entitled ordinary leave to a life convict when the Probation Officer has recommended the leave and the convict has previously complied with similar conditions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had been granted leave twice before by this Court without incident, demonstrating his compliance and low risk. The Probation Officer’s recommendation carried weight as an independent, professional assessment. The police objection was vague, speculative, and not based on any concrete threat or violation. The petitioner was entitled to leave under the Jail Manual, and denial without valid grounds violated principles of natural justice and proportionality.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and conceded that the Court had previously granted leave twice. While raising the police objection, no specific evidence of threat was produced. The submission was largely based on general caution rather than factual grounds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone a significant period of incarceration and had demonstrated compliance during two prior grants of ordinary leave. The Probation Officer’s recommendation was treated as a professional, objective assessment, distinct from the generalized and unsubstantiated concerns raised by the police.
"In view of the fact that the petitioner was granted ordinary leave twice by orders of this Court and nothing untoward has been reported, we are of the view that there is no justification in the apprehension expressed by the police. Further, the Probation Officer has recommended grant of leave."
The Court emphasized that the right to ordinary leave is not a privilege but a recognized entitlement under prison rules, designed to facilitate reintegration and maintain human dignity. Denial based on speculative fears, without any record of breach or credible threat, amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court held that the impugned order was not only unsustainable but also contrary to the principles of proportionality and reasonable classification under Article 14.
The Court further noted that the conditions proposed for the leave - reporting to the All Women Police Station twice weekly and adherence to the Jail Manual - were sufficient to mitigate any residual risk.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 was set aside. The Court directed the respondents to release the convict, Selvaraj, S/o. Samuvel, on ordinary leave for 28 days without police escort, from 02.04.2026 to 29.04.2026. He was required to surrender on 30.04.2026 before 10.00 A.M. and report twice weekly at the All Women Police Station, Tiruppur North, every Monday and Thursday at 10.30 A.M. during the leave period. All conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual were to be strictly followed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Probation Officer Recommendations Carry Substantial Weight
- Practitioners must now treat the Probation Officer’s recommendation as a decisive factor in leave applications, especially where prior compliance exists.
- Police objections without documented threat assessments or prior violations are insufficient to deny statutory entitlements.
Prior Compliance Establishes a Presumption of Low Risk
- A history of compliant leave under judicial orders creates a rebuttable presumption that future leave can be safely granted.
- Courts are likely to view repeated violations as the threshold for denial - not speculative fears.
Proportionality Must Guide Prison Administration
- Denial of leave must be proportionate to actual risk, not institutional caution.
- Conditions such as periodic reporting and adherence to Jail Manual rules are adequate safeguards even for convicts under POCSO.
No Automatic Exclusion for POCSO Convicts
- Convictions under POCSO do not automatically disqualify a prisoner from ordinary leave.
- Each application must be evaluated on individual conduct, not blanket categorization.
Leave Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- The judgment affirms that ordinary leave under the Jail Manual is a procedural right, not a discretionary favor.
- Denial without reasoned justification invites judicial intervention under Article 226.
