Madras High Court

Paul Nadar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 February, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                                                                      W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                          RESERVED ON: 05.02.2025

                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 12.02.2025


                                                        CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                           AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                           W.P.(MD)No.23470 of 2024


                     Paul Nadar                                                            ... Petitioner


                                                             Vs.


                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                     Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
                     Department of Home Affairs,
                     State of Tamil Nadu,
                     Fort St.George,
                     Chennai - 600 009.

                     2. The Additional Director General of Police / Inspector General of
                     Prisons,
                     No.6, Whannels Road,
                     Egmore,
                     Chennai - 600 008.


                     1/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
                                                                                       W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024


                     3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
                     Central Prison,
                     Palayamkottai,
                     Tirunelveli.                                                           ... Respondents



                     PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                     to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating

                     to the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV)

                     Department, dated 27.06.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the

                     same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner

                     namely, Paul Nadar (Male 81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict

                     Prisoner No.418, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai / 3rd

                     respondent, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488,

                     Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.(Ms) No.430,

                     Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.08.2023.



                                        For Petitioner            : Mr.M.Suri,

                                        For Respondents : Mr.Ravi

                                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor



                     2/17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
                                                                                      W.P(MD) No.23470 of 2024


                                                        ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by R.POORNIMA, J.]

This petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024,

filed this petition praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in

G.O.(D) No.806, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 27.06.2024

passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct

the 1st respondent to release the petitioner namely, Paul Nadar (Male

81/2024) S/o.Ayyankannu Nadar, Convict Prisoner No.418, confined at

Central Prison, Palayamkottai / 3rd respondent, in the light of the

Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.488, Home (Prison IV) Department,

dated 15.11.2021 and G.O.(Ms) No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department

dated 11.08.2023.

2. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under

Sections 449 and 302 IPC in S.C No.93 of 1992 and sentenced to

undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence

under Section 302 IPC in the judgment dated 22.02.1994, passed by the

District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the

judgment, he had filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.207 of 1994,

before the High Court of Judicature, Madras and the same was dismissed

on 26.09.2001.

3. He was subsequently charged and tried in another

Sessions Case in S.C.No.221 of 2004, under sections 341 and 302 IPC

and he was sentenced to undergo one-month simple imprisonment for the

offence under Section 341 IPC and also sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Against the said

judgment, he had filed a Criminal Appeal before the Madurai Bench of

Madurai High Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005 and the same was

dismissed on 13.03.2007.

4. The petitioner further states that since in the subsequent

judgment in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005, dated 13.03.2007, the sentence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

of life imprisonment was not ordered to run concurrently with earlier

conviction in Crl.A.No.207 of 1994 dated 26.09.2001 his son filed

H.C.P.No.556 of 2012 sought for the relief of subsequent sentence

passed in Crl.A.(MD)No.390 of 2005 to run concurrently with previous

sentence. This Court by order dated 22.06.2012 directed the life

imprisonment awarded in both the cases are ordered to run concurrently.

5. The petitioner has not filed any further appeal before the

Apex Court against the judgement in both cases.

6. The petitioner further states that the first respondent had

issued G.O.(Ms)No.488 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated

15.11.2021. Based on that the 1st respondent has to consider that the

petitioner has come under the category of the above Government Order.

The petitioner's son sent a representation on 27.02.2024 for the early

release of the petitioner, who is a life Convict Prisoner No.418 confined

at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, in the light of the Government Order in

G.O(MS)No.488 Home (Prison) Department, dated 15.11.2021. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

petitioner is aged about 81 years confined for the last 27 years and

suffering from old age ailments.

7. He further stated that the petitioner’s son filed a writ

petition in W.P.(MD)No.9594 of 2024 before this Court seeking the

relief of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent for premature

release based on the representation dated 27.02.2024, the Court directed

the first respondent to consider the same on merits and by law within

eight weeks from the date of copy of the receipt of the order dated

18.4.2024.

8. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated:

27.06.2024 rejecting the representation for the following reasons :

“i. As per the guidelines framed in G.O.(Ms). No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated. 15.11.2021 both the Second Level and State Level Committees have not recommended for premature release of the above Life Convict Prisoner.

ii. The Life Convict Prisoner is not eligible for consideration of premature release as per para 5(II) (i)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

of G.O. (Ms). No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated. 11.08.2023.

iii. The Probation Officer, Nanguneri had not recommended for premature release of the above Life Convict Prisoner for the reasons that Law and Order problems will arise and will be a threat to society if he is released prematurely".

9. Against which the present writ petition has been filed,

stating that the impugned order is illegal, the reason assigned for

rejection of his representation is unacceptable as the probation officer did

not recommend premature release.

10. The report of the Probation Officer stated that a law and

order problem would arise. The petitioner ought not to have relied on the

report of the Probation Officer. The petitioner prayed for a direction to

the first respondent to release him in the light of the Government Order

in G.O(MS)No.488 Home (Prison) Department, dated 15.11.2021.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the State submits that there is a bar to releasing the petitioner, as the life

convict prisoner committed a second murder while on bail, the Probation

Officer objected to his premature release for the reason that law and

order problems would arise.

12. The Advisory Board rejected the representation vide

Government Order in G.O(D)No.27 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated

09.01.2024 and stated that the order passed by the 1st respondent is well

reasoned, writ petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued as per

G.O(MS)No.488 dated 15.11.2021 clause 2(b) the convict prisoner had

completed 20 years of his actual imprisonment as of 15.09.2021 and he is

now aged about 82 years and requested to reconsider the age and length

of imprisonment of the convict prisoner and quash the order passed by

the first respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

14. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

15. The representation was made by one Thiru.Ayyappan,

son of the convict prisoner seeking for the premature release of his

father, who is a life convict prisoner No.418, by the name Paul Nadar son

of Ayyakannu Nadar and confined in Central Prison at Palayamkottai.

His representation was rejected vide G.O(D)No.806 dated 27.6.2024 by

the 1st respondent by stating that the Probation Officer, Nanguneri not

recommended his premature release and that law and order problem

would arise and would be a threat to society, if he is released prematurely

and further stated the convict is not eligible as per the condition

prescribed in paragraph 5(II)(I) of the above Government Order.

16. On careful, perusal of records, it revealed that the

petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC for life

imprisonment in S.C.No. 93/1992 dated 22.02.1994. He had committed

another murder while on bail, in S.C. No. 221/2004 and for the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

offence, he was once again convicted for a life sentence on

25.01.2005.This court ordered to run concurrently in both cases vide

order dated: 22.6.2012.

17. GO (MS) No.488 dated: 15.11.2021, the Hon’ble Chief

Minister of Tamil Nadu has made the following announcement on the

floor of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly :-

"rpiwf; ifjpfspd; Kd;tpLjiy bjhlu;ghd rl;lk; kw;Wk; tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L> nguwpQu; bgUe;jif mwpQu; mz;zh mtu;fSila 113-tJ gpwe;jehs; tUfpw brg;lk;gu; 15-Mk; njjpad;W tUfpwJ. mg;nghJ> ePz;lfhyk; rpiwthrk; mDgtpj;JtUk; 700 Ma[s; jz;lidf; ifjpfspd; jz;lidia ey;byz;zk; kw;Wk; kdpjhgpkhd mog;gilapy; Fiwj;J> Kd;tpLjiy bra;a ,e;j muR cupa eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;> ,jw;fhd murhiz tpiuapy; btspaplg;gLk;"

18. Based on the above announcement of the Hon’ble Chief

Minister; the government decided to frame guidelines for considering the

cases of life convict prisoners to release them prematurely under Article

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

161 of the Constitution of India, in commemoration of the 113th birthday

of Perarignar Anna subject to the satisfaction of the condition laid down

in the above Government Order.

19.The petitioner's son Thiru. Ayyappan sent a

representation with a request to release his father, the life prisoner as per

GO.MS.No.488 dated 15.11.2021. He had also filed a W.P.(MD) No.

9594 of 2024 with a prayer to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st

respondent to consider representation. The Court in its order dated

18.04.2024, issued directions to pass orders on merits and in accordance

with law within a period of eight weeks.

20. In view of the directions, the Director General of Prison

and Correctional Services has sent a proposal for the premature release of

the life convict Paul Nadar, in his letter dated 13.05.2024 informed that

the life convict prisoner has completed 20 years, six months and six days

of the sentence as of 15.09.2021 and informed that a proposal in this

regard has been sent to the Government.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

21. The petitioner case of premature release under the

Advisory Board Scheme has been rejected vide G.O (D) No.806 dated:

27.06.2024, that the Board has not recommended for premature release as

he has committed second murder while on bail and the Probation Officer

also objected for his release. the probation officer had not recommended

his premature release for the reason that law and order problems would

arise and will be a threat to society if he is prematurely released and he is

not eligible as per the condition prescribed in para 5(II)(i) of the

Government Order. Therefore the 1st respondent rejected the

representation of the son of the life convict for premature release.

22. On careful Verification of G.O(MS) No. 430 dated

11.08.2023 condition 5(II) prescribed that the accused involved in rape

case under section 376 of IPC is not eligible for premature relief, but the

convict prisoner is not involved in the above offences, he is not come

under the above category.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

23. But clause 5(II) c is prescribed that the prisoner

convicted for more than two murders is not eligible for premature

release. This is also not applicable to the life convict as he has not been

involved in more than two murders. As far as first offence is concerned

he was convicted for life imprisonment on 22.02.1994, as on 15.09.2021

he had completed 27 years of actual imprisonment, but for the 2 nd offence

he was convicted on 25.01.2005 and not completed 20 years of actual

imprisonment. Further the Probation Officer not recommended for his

release by stating that Law and Order problem would arise, if he is

released prematurely.

24. Premature release is a discretionary power vested in the

appropriate Government, the Governor and the President under section

432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 161 and 72 of

the Constitution of India, respectively.

25. Since on the date of consideration the accused has not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

completed 20 years of sentence in the subsequent case, the Probation

Officer also not recommended for his release. Hence, we are not inclined

to interfere with the order of the first respondent.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that

now the life convict is aged about 81 years and request to consider his

age and the duration in the jail, as per G.O(MS) No.430 dated

11.08.2023, clause IV Ageing provided as follows :

“IV) Ageing The cases of life convict prisoners, whose age is 60 years and above as on 15.09.2023 may be considered for premature release irrespective of the eligibility conditions mentioned above provided they have undergone 20 years of sentence.”

27. Indeed the petitioner is now aged about 82 years. As on

date he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment in both the

cases and is suffering from age-related disease. As per G.O (MS)

No.430 dated 11.08.2023, life convict whose age 60 years and above as

of 15.09.2023 may be considered for premature release, irrespective of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )

the eligibility conditions provided they have undergone 20 years of

sentence. We noticed that as on date the accused had completed 20 years

of sentence in both the cases.

28. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh

representation to the respondents and the 1st respondent is directed to

consider the case of premature release of the life convict/petitioner as per

the relevant rules/guidelines within a period of two months from the date

of receipt of his representation.

29. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. No costs.

                                                                             [G.J, J.]     [R.P., J.]
                                                                                   12.02.2025

                     Index : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes / No
                     NCC : Yes / No

                     RM



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )




                     To


                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,