SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dtd. 4/7/2025, thereby, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for premature release of the petitioner's brother.

(2.) The petitioner's brother Kumar @ Selvakumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.547 of 2018. While being so, the petitioner, who is the sister of the convict prisoner, submitted a representation seeking premature release of her brother by invoking the Government Order in G.O(Ms)No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dtd. 15/11/2021 since her brother already had completed 10 years of imprisonment and as such, he is entitled for premature release. On receipt of the said representation, the first respondent considered the said representation and rejected the request made by the petitioner on the ground that G.O(Ms)No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dtd. 15/11/2021 is not applicable to the convict and as per G.O.Ms.No.430, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dtd. 11/8/2023 the convict is not entitled for premature release. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the first respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner seeking premature release of her brother without considering the report submitted by the third respondent. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15956 of 2024. This Court, by an order dtd. 2/1/2025 set aside the said rejection order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration by considering the report submitted by the third respondent herein. Once again, the request made by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent without considering the report submitted by the third respondent. In fact, as directed by this Court, the first respondent did not pass orders, within a time stipulated by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1398 of 2025. While pending contempt petition, in a hurried manner, the first respondent once again rejected the request made by the petitioner. That apart, the third respondent submitted a detailed report about the conduct of the convict and he recommended for premature release. Even then, without considering the same, the first respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner only for the reason that the petitioner approached this Court by way of contempt petition as against the first respondent for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.15956 of 2024.