Padmavathi v. The Chief Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Padmavathi ... Petitioner W/o.Manikandan Vs.
1.
The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2.
The Director General of Police, Puducherry.
3.
The Inspector General of Prison, Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry - 605 014.
4.
The Chief Superintendent of Jails, Government of Puducherry, Jail Department, Puducherry.
5.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry - 605 014.
6.
The Superintendent of Prison, Sub Jail, Yanam, Puducherry.
1/7
7.
The Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry, Crime No.104 of 1998.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in No.4954/CON/OP/CSJ/JD/2024-25/01 dated 09.10.2025 on the file of the 4th respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to grant ordinary parole for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband Mani @ Manikandan (Male / 48 years) (Prisoner No.4954) who is confined in Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) assisted by Mr.M.Thamizhmani
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.,] This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of rejection in No.4954/CON/OP/CSJ/JD/2024-25/01, dated 09.10.2025, passed by the fourth respondent, and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to grant ordinary parole for a period of one month to the 2/7
petitioner's husband Mani @ Manikandan (Male / 48 years) (Prisoner No.4954), who is confined in Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, Mani @ Manikandan, a life convict confined in the Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry, has undergone 26 years of imprisonment. He was earlier granted parole on several occasions and had duly complied with all the conditions. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.09.2025 seeking 30 days' of emergency leave for her husband to attend their daughter's tonsuring and ear-piercing scheduled on 27.10.2025. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1043 of 2025 before this Court. By an order dated 09.10.2025, this Court directed the respondents to consider her representation within a period of two weeks. However, the fourth respondent, by an impugned order dated 09.10.2025, rejected the request on the ground that three criminal cases against the convict prisoner are pending trial. Challenging the said rejection, the present petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal cases referred to by the prosecution are fabricated and that the convict has 3/7
been falsely implicated. He further submitted that in some of those cases, this Court granted parole in several occasions and the convict had duly complied with all the conditions. Though parole was not granted, the petitioner's family had postponed the proposed ear-piercing ceremony. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for grant of emergency leave for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's husband, who is the convict prisoner, has been involved in more than twenty criminal cases. He is a life convict in one case, and three other cases are presently pending trial, viz., (i) S.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry; (ii) S.T.C.No.1703 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Puducherry; and (iii) S.C.No. 21 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. He further submitted that in one of the pending cases, the witnesses are afraid to appear before the Court to depose their evidence. Therefore, considering the antecedents of the convict prisoner, the fourth respondent has rejected the leave application of the petitioner. Hence, it was contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4/7
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband, who is a history sheet holder, was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in S.C.No.15 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry on 05.04.2000. Further, three criminal cases are pending trial; in two of them, the trial is at the stage of examining witnesses, and in the remaining case, the witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, considering the adverse antecedents of the convict and the stage of the pending trials, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking leave for her husband, after completion of the trial in the aforesaid three cases. (P.V., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 09.12.2025 Index: Yes/No ms 5/7
To 1.
The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
2.
The Director General of Police, Puducherry.
3.
The Inspector General of Prison, Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry - 605 014.
4.
The Chief Superintendent of Jails, Government of Puducherry, Jail Department, Puducherry.
5.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Kalapattu, Puducherry - 605 014.
6.
The Superintendent of Prison, Sub Jail, Yanam, Puducherry.
7.
The Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry, 8.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
P.VELMURUGAN, J., and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., ms 09.12.2025 7/7