(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to call for the records pertains to the impugned order in No.16440/ta.ku.1/2025 dated 16.03.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reconsider the request of premature release to the petitioner’s grandfather/Convict namely Mr.Rengan @ Chinnathambi S/o.Sadaiyan (CT No.16440) in view of G.O.(MS) No.430 dated 11.08.2023 by the 1st respondent under the category of 5 (III) Medical Infirmities and Rule 632 of Tamil Nadu Prisons Rules 2024.)

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. The granddaughter of the convict prisoner, one Mr.Rengan @ Chinnathambi S/o.Sadaiyan (CT No.16440), has challenged the order dated 16.03.2026, rejecting the petitioner’s request for premature release of the convict prisoner.

2. According to the petitioner, the convict who is aged about 75 years is suffering from serious medical ailments and under Rule 632 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 2024 [hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’], he is entitled to be released, on medical grounds.

3. Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), per contra, submitted that the convict prisoner has not completed the minimum period of imprisonment to be considered for premature release; that as far as the medical condition is concerned, the convict prisoner was referred to the Medical Board as required under Rule 632 of the Rules and the Medical Board had recorded that he had certain manageable medical condition and hence, they had not recommended premature release; that therefore, the case of the convict prisoner was not considered for premature release on medical condition; and that an order was passed on 09.05.2026 and communicated to the petitioner.

4. By the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, the petitioner’s request for premature release of the convict prisoner was rejected, as he was found to be ineligible under any of the Government Orders mentioned therein, namely (i) G.O.(Ms).No.488, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 15.11.2021, (ii) G.O.(Ms). No.430, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 11.08.2023 and (iii) G.O.(Ms).No.12, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 10.01.2025. The petitioner is unable to fault this order, as admittedly, the convict prisoner had not suffered the minimum period of imprisonment to be eligible for premature release.

5. However, the learned counsel would submit that the convict prisoner would be eligible for release as per Rule 632 of the Rules.

6. Rule 632 of the Rules, provides for release of sick prisoners and the same reads as follows:

                   “632. Release of sick prisoners.- (1) If the Medical Board considers (i) that any prisoner is dangerously ill and that his illness, has not been purposely caused or aggravated by the prisoner himself (ii) that his illness, whether caused by imprisonment or not, will be so aggravated by further imprisonment as to render his early death likely; and (iii) that the prisoner will have a reasonable chance of recovery, if released, the Medical Board shall record a certificate in the following form namely:

                   “It is hereby certify that convict No.(Name) is in our opinion dangerously ill, suffering from (name of disease). His illness has not been caused or aggravated by any acts committed by him in order to procure release, and we sincerely declare that in our opinion he is likely to die if he remains in confinement, but that he will have a reasonable chance of recovery if he is released”.

                   In order to be accepted by Government, the certificate must strictly be in accordance with the terms of this rule. To it, the Medical Board shall append a full statement of the medical case and of the reasons which lead it to the belief expressed in the certificate.”

7. The respondents have obtained the report of the Medical Board, as per which, the convict prisoner, namely Rengan @ Chinnathambi, S/o. Sadaiyan (CT No.16440) does not satisfy any of the conditions required for early release.

8. It is reported by Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), that an order was passed on 09.05.2026 and communicated to the petitioner, rejecting her request for early release of the convict prisoner on the ground of sickness. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

9. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner had filed W.P.(Crl).No.575 of 2026, seeking a Writ of Mandamus and vide order dated 17.03.2026, we had directed the respondents to consider the representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. It appears that an order was passed on 16.03.2026 in response to the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025. This was not brought to our notice on 17.03.2026, which led to our passing an inconsequential order on the said date. We are constrained to express our displeasure in the manner in which the authorities had acted while giving instructions. Such a casual approach by the authorities cannot be brooked. The respondents, therefore, shall ensure that the instructions are issued with due responsibility.

10. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.