Only Government Can Approve Premature Release of Convict Prisoners, Rules Madras High Court
Madras HC rules that once sentencing ends, only the government can consider premature release of convicts.
The Madras High Court has categorically ruled that courts have no jurisdiction to grant bail or interim bail to convicted prisoners serving sentences, asserting that once sentencing is complete, the convict ceases to be in judicial custody and only the state government holds the authority to order premature release or suspension of sentence. In a landmark judgement delivered on November 19, 2025, a division bench of Justices N. Satish Kumar and M. Jothiraman dismissed a batch of 13 habeas corpus and writ petitions filed by relatives of life-term convicts, including Zubaitha Begum, who sought temporary release while their remission applications remained pending with the Tamil Nadu government. The bench declared that “a convict prisoner serving a sentence is not in the custody of the court”, rendering any plea for bail—including interim measures—legally untenable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court explicitly barred the High Court registry from entertaining future petitions seeking bail for convicts on the ground of pending remission requests, terming such filings “impermissible” and an overreach of judicial power. It clarified that premature release is an executive prerogative governed by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, and various policy guidelines, not a judicially enforceable right. The bench criticised the past practice where courts granted interim bail with the state’s “no objection”, observing that such leniency allowed the government to sidestep its own responsibility. While courts can still direct the government to decide pending remission applications within a reasonable time, they cannot step into the executive’s shoes to grant relief directly.
The ruling resolves long-standing confusion in Tamil Nadu, where hundreds of life convicts routinely approached the High Court for temporary bail, citing medical emergencies, family circumstances, or prolonged delays in government decisions—often securing relief for months or years. The bench cited Supreme Court precedents, including the 2020 judgement in Home Secretary (Prison) vs. H. Nilofer Nisha, to reinforce that remission and suspension of sentence are purely administrative functions. However, in a significant directive, the court ordered the Tamil Nadu government to dispose of all pending premature-release applications within three months, mandating consideration of humanitarian factors such as age, health, conduct in prison, and time already served.
Also Read: Tejas Fighter Jet Crash: Experts Say Jet Lost Altitude After Negative G Loop
Legal experts view the verdict as a major corrective that restores the separation of powers while simultaneously compelling the state to expedite long-delayed remission decisions, some pending for over a decade. Prisoner-rights activists have welcomed the three-month deadline but expressed concern that strictly barring judicial intervention may leave vulnerable convicts without urgent relief in genuine medical or humanitarian crises. The judgement is likely to influence similar cases across the country and may prompt the Tamil Nadu government to overhaul its remission processing mechanism to prevent future judicial rebukes. For now, the Madras High Court has drawn a firm line: custody of a sentenced convict belongs solely to the state, and so does the power to set them free.
Also Read: FM Nirmala Sitharaman Holds Pre-Budget Meeting with Infrastructure and Energy Experts for FY27
