Thu Nov 20 13:15:49 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:
Summary:
The Madras High Court has ruled that it no longer has the authority to grant interim bail to convicts awaiting a decision on their premature release petitions. The court clarifies that both premature release and suspension of sentence are the sole prerogative of the Tamil Nadu state government, exercised under the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita and the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules of 1982. The court has instructed the Registry to no longer accept petitions seeking interim bail in premature release cases, while directing the state government to expedite the processing of these cases within three months, the court noted that it cannot order the release of convicts, but the government can exercise its discretionary power.
News Article:
Madras High Court Halts Practice of Granting Interim Bail to Convicts Seeking Premature Release
Chennai – November 20, 2025 – In a significant ruling announced today, the Madras High Court has ended its long-standing practice of granting interim bail to convicts whose petitions for premature release are pending before the Tamil Nadu state government. The decision, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, clarifies that the power to grant both premature release and suspension of sentence lies exclusively with the government.
The court was deliberating on writ petitions filed by convicts seeking premature release and subsequently, interim bail. Having observed that this particular practice had been in operation since 2016, the court had doubts over its legality. The court sought assistance from senior counsel R. John Sathyan as amicus curiae, and heard Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak for the State.
The ruling emphasizes that the High Court’s power to suspend sentences during appeals against conviction is distinct from suspending the sentence of a convict whose conviction has become final. In the latter case, the decision rests with the government under Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita and the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules of 1982.
The court further stated that the government cannot simply offer a “no objection” to the court granting interim bail; it has an obligation to address convicts’ grievances by promptly considering both premature release and temporary release requests.
As a result of the ruling, the High Court Registry is now instructed to reject any future petitions seeking interim bail in premature release cases. The court has directed the government to consider pending requests within a three-month timeframe.
While the court can not order the release of convicts, it emphasized that the government must adhere to Supreme Court guidelines and established procedures when exercising its discretionary power in these cases. The decision is expected to streamline the premature release process and clarify the roles of the judiciary and the executive branch in such matters.
First Piper 