Madras High Court
S.Ponmuthu vs The Home Secretary on 25 June, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.9427 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
S.Ponmuthu ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Home Secretary,
Home Prison Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 09.
2.The Additional Director General of Prison,
Office of the Additional Director General of Prison,
No.1, Gandhi Erwin Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 08.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
the order passed by the third respondent in No.14696/tha.ku2/2014, dated
15.04.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to
grant parole leave for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband,
namely, T.Sankar,C.P.No.4012, confined at Central Prison, Madurai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
^For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan,
Government Advocate
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in No.14696/tha.ku2/2014, dated 15.04.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant parole leave for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband, namely, T.Sankar,C.P.No.4012, confined at Central Prison, Madurai.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely, T.Sankar, was convicted by the trial Court in S.C.No.10 of 2000 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, vide judgment dated 30.10.2002 and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1601 of 2002. He has been in judicial custody for the past 12 years and he got parole in 37 occasions and reported back to the prison without any remarks.
4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was granted parole on 28.04.2015 upto 02.05.2015, on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner fell ill. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.7696 of 2015, seeking one month parole leave for the husband of the petitioner to sell his property to meet out the educational expenses of their daughter. Pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned order came to be passed, rejecting the plea of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of the petitioner's husband on ordinary leave is necessary to sell the property stood in his name, so as to meet out the educational expenses of their daughter and that the petitioner's husband has reported back to the prison without any remarks, till date and hence, the third respondent ought to have considered the request of the petitioner seeking ordinary leave, however, it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not eligible for parole leave as he was convicted under Section 392 I.P.C. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order and to grant one month parole leave to the petitioner's husband.
6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's husband was found ineligible to be released on ordinary leave, since he was convicted under Section 392 I.P.C and that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') to grant such parole leave to the petitioner's husband, to sell the property stood in his name. In the light of the relevant provisions relating to grant of ordinary leave alone, the third respondent refrained from granting such ordinary leave, which cannot be found fault with at any score and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not tenable in law, he concluded.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband was a life convict and the judgment passed by the trial Court was also confirmed by this Court. He has been under incarceration for the past 12 years and during such period, he was granted parole leave on several occasions on various grounds.
9. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband is an artist in drawing 3D pictures in the walls and that he has not indulged in any illegal activities in the prison so far and it would also exhibit his good behavior during the imprisonment and that he has conducted himself in such a manner. The request of the petitioner for ordinary leave to her husband may be considered sympathetically, taking into account the studies of their daughter, he pleaded.
10. Rule 20 of the Rules, dealt with the grounds for the grant of ordinary leave and it is useful to refer to the same, hereunder:
"20. Grounds for the grant of ordinary leave.- The grounds for the grant of ordinary leave to a prisoner shall be -
(i) to make arrangements for the livelihood of his family and for the settlement of life after release;
(ii) to make arrangements for the admission of the children in the school or college;
(iii) construction or repairing the home-stead;
(iv) to make arrangements or to participate in the marriages of sons, daughters, full brothers or full sisters;
(v) settling family disputes like partition etc.
(vi) agricultural operations like sowing, harvesting, etc; and
(vii) any other extraordinary reasons."
(emphasis supplied.)
11. A mere reading of clause (ii) to Rule 20 of the Rules, would make it apparently clear that a convict prisoner shall be granted ordinary leave to make arrangements for the admission of the children in the school or college. In the case on hand, the petitioner's husband sought ordinary leave on the ground that he has to sell his property in order to meet out the educational expenses of his daugher and hence, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the claim of the petitioner's husband for ordinary leave could be considered in the light of the above provisions.
12. However, the third respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that since the petitioner's husband was convicted under Section 392 I.P.C., he was ineligible to be considered for such a ordinary leave, which, cannot be countenanced as a valid ground to struck down the claim of the petitioner.
13. It is not denied on the side of the respondents that the petitioner's husband was not at all granted parole leave so far and admittedly, he has been under incarceration for more than 12 years and he has been released on parole on very many occasions and reported back to the prison promptly and now, the petitioner prayed for grant of ordinary leave to her husband to enable him to make arrangements for the studies of their daughter and therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the third respondent warrants interference.
14. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also produced some photographs of the paintings done by the husband of the petitioner and this Court, on having a glance over the same, feels that all those paintings are nothing, but, about surrealism and imagism, which, no doubt, resembles the paintings of the world famous Spanish Surrealist Artist, 'Salvador Dali'.
15. Besides, this Court remembers that the Russian author, namely, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in his famous novel, 'Crime and Punishment' portrayed the experiences of the inmates of a prison and he quoted, 'the prison life would teach many nuances of life to a person', which, similarly, made the husband of the petitioner, in the case on hand, to become such an artist.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court opines that prison ethnography involves unique challenges, but the rewards are generous. The prisons are not just warehouses, however, many people change themselves in prison. Indisputably, the character is ultimately responsible for a person's own behavior and for the consequences of that behavior. All of the agony, he suffers after the crime is as much a punishment as the prison term. One of his most painful realizations, is that he does not measure up to his own expectations for himself, but, his rehabilitation is always possible.
17. Further, in comparison, rehabilitation differs from retribution, but is similar to deterrence and incapacitation, in that, it is a utilitarian goal, with the utility or benefit for society being the reduction of crime. Rehabilitation seeks to assist both offenders and society. By treating offenders, they hope to give them the attitudes and skills to avoid crime and live a productive life. Correctional rehabilitation's focus is not simply on lawbreakers but also on protecting society, by making offenders less criminal, fewer people will be victimized and society will, as a result, be safer.
18. This Court, therefore, finds it appropriate to appraise the State Government to encourage the incomparable talents hidden behind the inmates of the prisons in Tamil Nadu, in the Fine Arts and other activities, as a sign of rehabilitation, which, would definitely, throw the 'light of hope' on the inmates of the prison, to mend themselves, from what had happened in their bitter past.
19. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, in No.14696/tha.ku2/2014, dated 15.04.2015, is set aside and the husband of the petitioner, namely, T.Sankar [C.P.No.4012] is ordered to be released on ordinary leave for a period of fifteen days, to make necessary arrangments for his daughter to pursue her studies, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The third respondent shall release the husband of the petitioner, namely, T.Sankar [C.P.No.4012] who, is confined at Central Prison, Madurai, on temporary release/leave/parole, for a period of fifteen days commencing from 26.06.2015, till 05.00 p.m., on 10.07.2015, on condition that the said T.Sankar, [C.P.No.4012], shall report back to the third respondent - the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai, by 05.00 p.m., on 10.07.2015;
(ii) Necessary escort will be provided to accompany the said T.Sankar [C.P.No.4012] free of cost;
(iii) During parole, the husband of the petitioner, namely, T.Sankar, shall abide all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.
(iv) The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to file a compliance report before this Court on 13.07.2015;
(v) It is also made very clear that the husband of the petitioner, namely, T.Sankar, [C.P.No.4012], under the guise of this temporary release/leave/parole shall not misuse the liberty. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
To
1.The Home Secretary, Home Prison Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 09.
2.The Additional Director General of Prison, Office of the Additional Director General of Prison, No.1, Gandhi Erwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 08.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai..