Life convicts can avail 40 days of annual leave in two instalments, rules Madras High Court

CHENNAI

Life convicts, who had completed 14 years of incarceration, are entitled to avail 40 days of ordinary leave in two instalments annually and they cannot be forced by the prison authorities to avail the leave only once every year, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan said, the Tamil Nadu Prison and Correctional Services department was denying leave to life convicts in instalments due to the use of the term ‘spell’ in both Rule 22(2)(c) and 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

In order to remove the ambiguity that had arisen because of the use of the same term in both the provisions, the Division Bench ordered that the word ‘spell’ found in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) must be read as ‘instalment’ so that it could be distinguished from the word ‘spell’ in Rule 22(3).

The judges further clarified that that the maximum period of 40 days of annual ordinary leave could be availed by an eligible prisoner in two instalments within one year from the first day of the first instalment of such leave and that their next annual entitlement would begin a year after the last day of the second instalment.

The verdict was passed while allowing a writ petition (criminal) filed by life convict S. Babu who was denied 14 days of ordinary leave on the ground that he had already been granted 26 days of ordinary leave in April 2026 and therefore, would have to wait till April 2027 to avail his next entitlement to ordinary leave.

Authoring the judgement, Justice Sumanth said, the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) states that “the maximum period of 40 days of ordinary leave may be availed in one spell or in two spells of any duration.” Rule 22(3) states that a prisoner shall be granted the second or subsequent spell after one year from the last leave.

Highlighting that the intention of the law makers was to give the prisoners the right to avail ordinary leave in two instalments within a year, the judge said, the use of the term ‘spell’ instead of ‘instalment’ in Rule 22(2)(c) had made the prison authorities interpret that the 40 day leave period must be availed in one go every year.

“Certainly, this cannot be the intention behind the grant of 40 days leave and the facility permitting the prisoner to avail the leave in two instalments. The unfortunate situation has arisen by virtue of the use of the word ‘spell’ in both Rule 22(2)(c) and 22(3) and we hence clarify that the word ‘spell’ in the proviso to Rule 22(2)(c) be read as ‘instalment’ to contra distinguish it from the word ‘spell’ used in Rule 22(3),” the Bench wrote.

On the other ground raised by the prison authorities that the petitioner, who had completed 18 years of incarceration, had absconded in 1997 and also between 2004 and 2014 when he was granted ordinary leave without escort, the judges said, they had already held in another case in June this year that the offence of absconding would not disentitle a convict from availing ordinary leave five years after committing such an offence.

The Bench took note that a trial court had on July 2, 2026 sentenced the petitioner to two months of imprisonment for the charge of escaping from lawful custody and he had already undergone that sentence too along with his life imprisonment.

Further, stating that the petitioner had so far undergone 18 years of incarceration (excluding the period he had gone absconding after availing leave) since the life imprisonment imposed on him in 1992, the court held that he would be entitled to 40 days of annual ordinary leave in two instalments.

After the petitioner had absconded during his leave period in 1997, he was recaptured on November 23, 2000. Thereafter, he was granted 30 days of leave in January 2004. He absconded during that period too and was recaptured on September 6, 2014. Further, he had so far availed 456 days of both ordinary and emergency leave, government counsel C.R. Malarvanan told the court.