Dhanalakshmi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home Fort St. George, Chennai 9..

2.The Prison Headquarters Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Trichy Range, Trichy.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

5.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy District ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the 3rd respondent to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Duraipandi S/o.Ganesan aged about 26 years, an undertrial prisoner at the Central Prison, Trichy before this court and further direct the respondents to provide the adequate treatment, legal assistance and access to family visits to the said under trial prisoner and remove him from the solitary confinement.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.) This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the husband of the petitioner Duraipandi S/o.Ganesan aged about 26 years, who is an under trial prisoner at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and to provide medical treatment, legal assistance and access to family visits to the said under trial prisoner. It was complained that he was kept under solitary confinement.

2. When the matter came up in the first hearing date, taking note of the fact that there was an allegation that the husband of the petitioner was kept under solitary confinement, by an order dated 26.09.2025, we had noted the representation made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the under trial prisoner Duraipandi and another remand prisoner Kathiresan were engaged in speaking from the telephone booth available in the prison block, at the same time, to a third party individual. It was contended that the sharing of the telephone booth was a violation of the Prison Manual.

3. It was represented that the husband of the petitioner was confined in 25th block along with other persons and not kept under solitary confinement. Kathiresan had been separated and had been put in 10th block along with other persons. Records in this connection were produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, we had, on that particular date/26.09.2025 directed the Principal District Judge at Tiruchirappalli to visit the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli to examine the prison records and give a report regarding the confinement of the husband of the petitioner/Duraipandi, S/o.Ganesan.

4. The Principal District Judge had made a visit to the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and had forwarded a report dated 09.10.2025, wherein, he had also forwarded documents relating to the extract from the Jailor Report Book and the findings of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons cum Superintendent of Prisons (i/c), Tiruchirappalli dated 08.10.2025 and also the statement of Duraipandi, Kathiresan and other individuals. He also produced a statement of Deputy Jailor Selvaraj. In his report, he had stated that he had made a personal visit to the Central Prison at Tiruchirappalli on 08.10.2025 along with the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tiruchirappalli and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority at Tiruchirappalli. He had gone over to block No.25.

He was of the impression that though it was not solitary confinement, still the prisoners were segregated independent of each other. It was stated that they could not come out of the cell at any point of time both during day and night. There was no possibility of meeting other inmates during the period in which they are placed in that particular block.

5. Thereafter, in order to regularize the entire issue relating to any

acts of omission or commission committed by the under trial prisoner or even convict prisoners and to regulate the procedure to be adopted, while taking note of such acts of omission and commission, which, according to the jail authorities, were in violation of the Prison Rules, we had directed the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services at Chennai, who has overall control of the prisons across the State to examine issuance of a circular setting out Standard Operating Protocol in such circumstances.

6. In the hearing date 10/10/2025, we had sought a report to be filed in this connection. Later, during the next hearing date on 17.10.2025, we had received a report from the Superintendent of Prisons, Tiruchirappalli that a circular, which had been issued by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services. But, however, we had noted that the circular does not contemplate provision of copies of the action taken against the complaints of any acts of omission or commission committed by the prison inmates. Therefore, we had sought the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to bestow his special attention on redrafting the circular issued.

7. Today, a further circular dated 13.11.2025 in No.TNPCS/6615/2023-PW3 had been produced before us issued by the office of the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Chennai with directions for the same to be circulated to all Additional Superintendent of Prisons, Jailors, Deputy Jailors, Assistant Jailors and Warders of all the prisons across the State and to ensure that the directions given therein are followed in letter and spirit. In the said circular, the issue of punishments being given to the inmates had been addressed in clause 2.2, wherein, it had been stated that the prisoners would be informed in writing of the specific offence committed by them. Thereafter the manner in which the proceedings would be conducted had also been stated and at clause 3.4, it had been stated that a copy of the statement given by the prisoner and a copy of the punishment record in form No.15 shall also be given to the prisoner to enable him to file an appeal.

8. We would direct the jail authorities to follow this circular in letter and spirit as directed by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services at Chennai. This would bring about transparency in handling the issues relating to acts of misconduct alleged against inmates in the prison

across the State and the procedure adopted to address such acts of misconduct. We would accordingly place a caveat that if a prisoner requests copies of any further statements, provided, they are germane and relevant to the facts, the copies may be served to him to enable him to file an appeal against the same.

9. We would also place a direction that the office of the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services at Chennai may also issue the very same circular after translating it in Tamil and circulate the same to all the prisons. The copies may also be served on the Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, who may circulate the same to the District Legal Services Authority and the officers, who make prison visits.

10. We deeply appreciate the steps taken by Dr.Maheswar Dayal, IPS, the Director General of Prisons, and Correctional Services at Chennai, who had responded to our earlier orders in issuing circular to regulate the proceedings relating to complaints received against prison inmates.

11. We also deeply appreciate the efforts taken by Dr.A.Murugesan, IPS, Director General of Prisons (Madurai Range), who had been assisting the Court from the first hearing of this particular case and had also given his valuable inputs for the procedure to be adopted in cases of misconduct by the prison authorities.

11. With the above observations and directions, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.11.2025 NCC : Yes Index : Yes RR

To:

1.The Principal District Judge, Trichy.

2. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services Chennai and Madurai Range.

3.The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.. 4.The Prison Headquarters Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 5.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Trichy Range, Trichy.

6.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Trichy.

7.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy District 8.The Member Secretary, The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai.

7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J.

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

RR 18.11.2025