logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4629 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : WP Crl.(MD)No. 2233 of 2026 & WMP(MD) No. 539 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Parties : Seetharaman Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Home Secretary Home (prison) Department, State of Tamilnadu Secretariat Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: T. Leninkumar, Counsel for State.
Date of Judgment : 19-06-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.534 dated 28.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal consequently to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's son by name Muthukrishnan (CP No.4399 PID No.34580) son of Seetharaman, aged about 45 year now lodged and confined at Central Prison, Madurai have completed more than 16 years of actual sentence on the basis of under Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rule and on the basis of Advisory Board Scheme G.O.Ms.No.596 Home Prison IV department dated 24.11.2023 and on the basis of the order of this Court in WP No. 31478/2024 dated 02.04.2026 in accordance with law within a time stipulated by this Court.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.534 dated 28.04.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's son by name Muthukrishnan (CP No.4399 PID No.34580) son of Seetharaman, aged about 45 year now lodged and confined at Central Prison, Madurai, who have completed more than 16 years of actual sentence on the basis of under Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rule and on the basis of Advisory Board Scheme G.O.Ms.No.596 Home Prison IV department dated 24.11.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner's son is a life convict (CP No.4399 PID No. 34580) and is serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai. A representation was made by the petitioner seeking for premature release. Since the same was not considered, WP(MD) No.2478 of 2023 was filed before this court. However, the Government issued G.O.(D) No.1064 on 08.09.2023 rejecting the request for premature release. Accordingly, the said writ petition came to be closed by recording the said rejection order. The said proceedings came to be challenged before this court in WP(MD) No.23234 of 2023. This Court, by order dated 29.02.2024 disposed the said writ petition by observing that since the Government has passed two other Government orders, the request for premature release shall be in consonance with the latest G.O., issued by the Government and directed the convict to make a fresh representation to the Government and directed the Government to consider the same within a period of eight weeks.

4. Subsequently, the impugned rejection order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, came to be issued. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this court.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submitted that the convict has undergone sentence of 11 years, 8 months and 16 days.

6. This court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7. The petitioner has sought for premature release on the basis of under Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rule and on the basis of Advisory Board Scheme G.O.Ms.No.596 Home Prison IV department dated 24.11.2023. The said request made by the petitioner was positively considered by the Government and the files were placed before His Excellency, the Governor. His Excellency, the Governor has returned the file stating that the remission would be premature and prejudicial to justice. Based on the same, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by the first respondent.

8. The issue involved is no longer res integra and it is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in Eswaran v. State dated 02.04.2026. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

               “4. Ergo, the aforesaid Division Bench framed two issues and directed the Registry to place the above matters before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Upon the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, this Full Bench was constituted to decide the aforereferred two issues which are extracted below:

               i. Whether His Excellency The Governor is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release?

               ii. If he is so bound, under what circumstances, does the Governor have the discretion to take a view different from that taken by the Council of Ministers? ...

               11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court answers both the issues under reference cumulatively by holding that while exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to remission and premature release of convict prisoners, the Hon’ble Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers regardless of whether the Hon’ble Governor likes that advice or not and under no circumstance, the Hon’ble Governor can exercise discretion to take a different view from the one taken by the Council of Ministers.”

9. It is clear from the above judgment that in matter relating to remission and premature release, His Excellency the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. In the case in hand, the State has already recommended the case for premature release on the ground that the convict satisfies the requirement under G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 15.11.2021. Hence, the same ought not to have been rejected since His Excellency the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.

10. In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.534 dated 28.04.2025 is hereby set aside and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to pass an order and grant premature release to the petitioner's son namely Muthukrishnan, S/o.Seetharaman (CP No.4399 PID No.34580) currently serving sentence at Central Prison, Maduri, in accordance with Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rule and on the basis of Advisory Board Scheme G.O.Ms.No.596 Home Prison IV department dated 24.11.2023 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal