Madras High Court
G.Priya vs The Home Secretary (Prison) on 28 June, 2021
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.01.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
G.Priya .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary (Prison)
Home Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.Additional Director General of Prison and
Inspector General of Prisons
Whannels Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Special Prison for women
Puzhal Jail-3
Chennai 600 006 .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records of impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent ref. vide
No.14468/CP.1/2021, dated 28.06.2021, by rejecting the petitioner's
constitutional fundamental right of premature release, is illegal and without
any basis and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and direction shall
be issued to the respondents 1,2,3 in pursuance of the G.O.(Ms) No.1155,
dated 11.09.2008, Home (Prison-IV) Department to pass order(s) for the
petitioner's premature release.
For Petitioner Mr.P.Jegan
For Respondents Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
R.N.MANJULA, J.
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the
2nd respondent in No.14468/CP.1/2021 dated 28.06.2021 and for a direction
to the respondents to pass orders for premature release, in pursuance of
G.O.(Ms) No.1155, dated 11.09.2008, Home (Prison-IV) Department (for
brevity “G.O. 1155”).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
2. The minimum facts that are required for disposing this writ petition
are as under :
2.1. G.Priya, the petitioner herein, is a life convict (CT.No.844),
having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the
I Additional Sessions Court, Cuddalore in S.C.No.312/2012 on 14.02.2013,
which conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court in
appeal as well by the Supreme Court.
2.2. The State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.1155 (supra) for premature
release of life convict prisoners on the occasion of the Birth Centenary of
Peraringnar Anna on 15.09.2008. The said G.O.1155 prescribes minimum
eligibility conditions as on 15.09.2008 that would entail a convict prisoner to
be considered for premature release.
2.3. The petitioner gave a representation dated 23.04.2021 to the
prison authorities, seeking premature release under G.O.1155, which has
been rejected by the 2nd respondent on 24.06.2021, challenging which, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, besides seeking a mandamus as
stated above.
3. Heard Mr.P.Jegan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hasan
Mohamed Jinnah, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. The petitioner's representation dated 23.04.2021 has been rejected
by the 2nd respondent on 24.06.2021, on the short ground that G.O.1155
cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, as she was convicted and
sentenced by the trial Court only on 14.02.2013, whereas, G.O.1155,
inter alia, clearly spells out that for availing premature release, the convict
should have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on
15.09.2008, being the Birth Centenary of Peraringnar Anna.
5. It is clear as crystal that G.O.1155 is an one time premature release
scheme and does not operate in perpetuity. This is limpid from a bare
reading of the last paragraph of G.O.1155 which is extracted below for
ready reference:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
“6. In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 161
of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby
remits the unexpired portion of sentence of imprisonment for life
passed on the 1405 life convicts mentioned in Annexures I, II and
III to this order, confined in various Central Prisons, Special
Prisons for Women and the prisons in the State of Kerala subject to
the conditions mentioned in para 1 above.”
6. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, he placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdish and Harpal [(2010) 4 SCC
216] and submitted that the premature release policy of the Government as
on the date of the conviction and sentence of the prisoner should be made
applicable. One can have no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law,
but, Jagdish and Harpal (supra) turns out on its own facts, which could be
culled out from paragraph 5 as under :
“5. ... ... The respondent was convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 20-5-1999 and the policy
which was in existence at that point of time was dated 4-2-1993. The
respondent, having served more than 10 years' imprisonment,
approached the High Court that in spite of having undergone the
sentence as per the aforesaid policy dated 4-2-1993, his case for
pre-mature release was not being considered in view of the new policy of
short sentencing, introduced on 13-8-2008.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
7. A reading of the above clearly shows that the convict prisoner in
that case was convicted and sentenced on 20.05.1999 and the premature
release policy that was in vogue was 04.02.1993, which should have been
made applicable to him and instead, when the authorities sought to apply the
premature release policy dated 13.08.2008, the Punjab and Haryana High
Court intervened and granted relief to the convict prisoner, which was
confirmed by the Supreme Court.
8. The situation in Tamil Nadu is not akin to the one that obtains in
the State of Haryana, in the matter of premature release. In Tamil Nadu,
there is no fixed policy for premature release. The Government, from time to
time, would announce a scheme for premature release and the scheme will
set out the eligibility conditions as on a particular date.
9. In the instant case, G.O.1155 dated 11.09.2008, clearly stipulated
that 15.09.2008 would be the date on which the conditions for eligibility of a
convict prisoner for premature release, would be reckoned. Admittedly, as on
15.09.2008, the petitioner was not even an accused in the case in which she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
was convicted and sentenced, as the occurrence itself was on 09.09.2012. In
such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned,
warranting interference.
In fine, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
No costs.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.N.M., J.]
gya 27.01.2022
To
1.The Home Secretary (Prison)
Home Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Additional Director General of Prison and
Inspector General of Prisons
Whannels Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Special Prison for women
Puzhal Jail-3
Chennai 600 006
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gya
W.P.No.16528 of 2021
27.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
