The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, governing ordinary leave for life-sentence convicts. Holding that the word ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) means an instalment, the Court ruled that a prisoner eligible for forty days of annual ordinary leave may avail it in two instalments within one year, and directed the authorities to grant fourteen days of leave without escort to the petitioner.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, S.Babu, a convict confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, sought ordinary leave of fourteen days without escort. His request was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Puzhal Range. He filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari or mandamus to quash that order and to direct the authorities to grant the leave.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted on 10.03.1992 and the conviction was confirmed on 07.03.2001.
- As of 12.08.2026 he had been confined for eighteen years, two months and sixteen days.
- He had availed a total of 456 days of leave, comprising 129 days of emergency leave, 270 days granted by the authorities and 57 days granted by intervention of this Court, all without escort.
- Between 03.04.2006 and 29.04.2026 he had availed twenty-six days of ordinary leave; the last spell of such leave ended on 29.04.2026.
- In 1997 and again in 2004 the petitioner absconded while on leave; he was re-captured on 23.11.2000 and 06.09.2014 respectively.
- Circular No.26594/PS.4/2017 dated 15.12.2017 issued by the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, bars grant of any leave to prisoners who were absent on leave previously and facing/faced a case under Section 224 IPC.
- The petitioner had been convicted in C.C.No.70 of 2016 under Section 224 IPC, sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000, with default simple imprisonment for one month; the judgment in that case was dated 02.07.2026.
- The impugned order dated 22.07.2026 rejected the leave request on three grounds: (i) bar under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (now rendered ineffective after the 02.07.2026 judgment), (ii) the abscondence bar under the aforesaid Circular, and (iii) non-fulfilment of the one-year gap requirement under Rule 22(3) because the petitioner had not completed one year of imprisonment from his return from the last ordinary leave on 29.04.2026.
Procedural History
- 22.07.2026: Impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request for fourteen days ordinary leave without escort.
- Date of petition filing: Not expressly stated; filed after the impugned order and before reservation.
- 31.08.2026: Matter reserved for judgment.
- 12.10.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 22.07.2026, a direction to the respondents to grant ordinary leave of fourteen days without escort, and such further orders as the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the word ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 requires a one-year gap between two instalments of ordinary leave, or whether it should be read as ‘instalment’ allowing the forty-day annual entitlement to be availed in two instalments within one year from the first day of the first instalment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that Rule 22(1)(c) read with Rule 22(2)(c) entitles a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment exceeding fourteen years or for life to forty days of ordinary leave per year, which may be availed in two spells/instalments. He argued that the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) merely limits the maximum period of leave in a spell to forty days, which can be taken in one or two spells. He relied on the judgment in Chinnathambi v The Director General of Prisons, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore Central Prison, Coimbatore and another1 to submit that abscondence cannot be held against a convict for all time, especially when no attempt to abscond has been made thereafter. He further argued that interpreting ‘spell’ as requiring a one-year gap between instalments would defeat the purpose of granting forty days annual leave in two instalments.
For the Respondent
The respondents maintained that the petitioner was not eligible for ordinary leave because he had availed twenty-six days of ordinary leave between 03.04.2006 and 29.04.2026 and had not completed one year of imprisonment from his return on 29.04.2026, as required by Rule 22(3). They relied on Circular No.26594/PS.4/2017 to assert that the abscondence bar was still operative, and submitted that the word ‘spell’ in both Rule 22(2)(c) and Rule 22(3) must be given the same meaning, necessitating a one-year gap between the first and second instalments of leave.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Scheme of Rule 22 and noted that Rule 22(1)(c) deals with a convict whose sentence exceeds fourteen years or is life, and Rule 22(2)(c) provides that leave not exceeding forty days may be granted from the sixth to the fourteenth year of imprisonment and for the remainder of the term beyond fourteen years. The proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) states that the maximum period of forty days of ordinary leave may be availed in one spell or in two spells of any duration. Rule 22(3) requires an interval of one year between each spell of ordinary leave granted to the prisoner.
The Court observed that the respondents’ interpretation would force a prisoner eligible for forty days annual leave to avail the entire entitlement in one stretch, otherwise suffering a one-year gap between instalments, which defeats the legislative intent of allowing leave in two instalments. It therefore held that the word ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) must be read as ‘instalment’ to distinguish it from the word ‘spell’ used in Rule 22(3).
"We hence clarify that the word ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) be read as ‘instalment’ to contradistinguish it from the word ‘spell’ used in Rule 22(3)."
Accordingly, the Court concluded that a prisoner eligible for forty days annual ordinary leave may avail it in two instalments only within one year from the first day of the first instalment, and the one-year gap referred to in Rule 22(3) applies from the last day of the second instalment (or from the expiry of one year from the last day of the first instalment if only one instalment has been availed).
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2026 and directed the authorities to grant ordinary leave of fourteen days without escort to the convict S.Babu from 13.10.2026 till 26.10.2026, with release at 10.00 am on 13.10.2026 and surrender before the Central Prison, Puzhal on 27.10.2026 before 10.00 a.m. The petitioner is required to report before the N3 Muthiyalpettai Police Station at 11.00 am on every alternate day during the leave period and to utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interpretation of 'Spell' as 'Instalment' in Prison Leave Rules
The judgment clarifies that in the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the term ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) denotes an instalment, not a period requiring a one-year gap. Practitioners must now argue that the forty-day annual entitlement may be split into two instalments within a single year, and that the one-year gap under Rule 22(3) operates only after the completion of leave, not between instalments.
Annual Leave Entitlement Not Defeated by Intervening Gaps
The Court emphasized that interpreting ‘spell’ to require a one-year gap between instalments would nullify the benefit of bifurcating the leave entitlement. Hence, for prisoners sentenced to life or exceeding fourteen years, the forty-day annual leave is available in two instalments irrespective of any interim period, provided the total does not exceed forty days and the one-year gap under Rule 22(3) is observed from the last day of the second instalment.
Procedural Conditions for Grant of Leave Remain Binding
While the temporal restriction was relaxed, the Court reiterated that all other conditions attached to ordinary leave - such as reporting to the designated police station, utilizing the leave solely for the granted purpose, and surrendering on time - continue to apply strictly. Legal representatives must ensure compliance with these procedural safeguards when seeking leave for their clients.
