A five-judge Larger Bench of the Madras High Court has passed an interim order directing the prison authorities in the State to entertain applications for grant of ordinary or emergency leave even with respect to convicts whose appeals against conviction are pending before appellate courts.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justices C.V. Karthikeyan, A.D. Jagadish Chandira, M. Nirmal Kumar and Sunder Mohan said, their interim order shall be followed pending final determination of a connected case by the Supreme Court and also the reference made to the Larger Bench by a Division Bench of two judges.

The Larger Bench directed the competent prison authorities to process applications for ordinary and emergency leave in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 as well as the guidelines framed by a Full Bench of three judges in T. Ramalakshmi versus State of Tamil Nadu in 2025.

After directing the Madras High Court Registry to circulate a copy of their order to the Home Secretary for issuance of necessary instructions to the prison authorities across the State, the five judges decided to await Supreme Court orders in the connected case before taking up the reference for final hearing.

The judges also accepted a request made by advocate M. Radhakrishnan and decided to keep in abeyance the Division Bench’s order directing the High Court Registry not to number petitions seeking ordinary/emergency leave for convicts whose appeals were pending before appellate courts.

They also recorded the submission of amicus curiae Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam that the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar versus State was navigating the complexities of State specific prison rules to evaluate the feasibility of a pan India policy and any decision in that regard would have a direct bearing on the reference.

The reference was made by the Division Bench after finding the 2025 Full Bench’s decision in Ramalakshmi’s case to be contrary to a 2011 decision by a co-equivalent bench in State of Tamil Nadu versus Yesu. However, the Larger Bench prima facie found the verdict in Ramalakshmi’s case to be laying down the correct position of law.

Observing a state of legal uncertainty could not be allowed to prejudice the liberty of convicts until the Supreme Court decides the issue and also the present reference gets answered finally, the judges took note that in Tamil Nadu there were no other rules, except the 1982 Rules, governing the temporary release of convicts.

Just because the Rules carry the nomenclature ‘Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules,’ it need not mean convicts could secure suspension of sentence only from appellate courts where their appeals against conviction were pending and would not be entitled to grant of ordinary/emergency leave, the Larger Bench said.

“The grant of leave for a temporary period, which can extend to a maximum of 40 days per annum, would also not in any way interfere with the power of this court or any appellate court to grant or deny the suspension of sentence pending the appeal,” the Chief Justice wrote.

“Before parting with this stage of the proceedings, this court deems it appropriate to place on record its profound appreciation and commendation for the learned Amicus. His meticulous research, erudite submissions, and the comprehensive nature of the materials placed before us have been of invaluable assistance in navigating the complex constitutional and statutory thickets inherent in this reference,” the Larger Bench added.