“The question is whether reference to Section 435 in the GO (government order), remains a hurdle even if the sentence for the offence relatable to Section 435, has been served, and our conclusion is in the negative,” the bench held on June 2, concluding that the government‘s interpretation of its remission policy was legally unsustainable.
Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that state governments cannot suspend, remit, or commute a sentence for certain specific offences without consulting the Central government.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court turned its attention to systemic delays in processing remission applications. (Image enhanced using AI)
Court nudges Tamil Nadu towards prison reforms
- In a notable postscript, the Madras High Court also turned its attention to systemic delays in processing remission applications.
- Taking note of the Supreme Court‘s recent judgment in Surendra @ Sunda v State of Uttar Pradesh, which endorsed the use of technology to streamline premature-release decisions, the court directed steps towards implementing the “E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module” in Tamil Nadu.
- The pilot project is proposed to begin in Puzhal prisons.
- The registrar (IT) has been directed to convene meetings of stakeholders and place a status report before the Madras High Court regarding the readiness of the software system.
- The matter was listed on June 29, for reporting compliance.
- For Dhanapal, the ruling does not guarantee immediate freedom.
- But after more than two decades behind bars, it has reopened a door that appeared firmly shut, giving him another chance to seek an early release from prison.
Convicted in 1997 multiple-murder case
The case traces its origins to a case registered in 1997 at Omalur Police Station in Salem district.
Following a trial in a case registered in 1999, Dhanapal was convicted on October 20, 2004, for offences under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with five murders, apart from an offence under Section 3 (causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
While he was awarded life imprisonment for the murder convictions, the punishment imposed under the Explosive Substances Act was one year of rigorous imprisonment.
In February 2007, the Madras High Court upheld his conviction, and a further appeal before the Supreme Court also failed. The high court noted that he has now spent more than 21 years in prison.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the convict had shown substantial reformation during incarceration and had been granted leave several times without escort, with no untoward incidents reported during those periods.
Family’s plea for release rejected
Seeking his father’s early release, Mugilan submitted a representation to the authorities.
When no decision was taken, he approached the Madras High Court, which in January 2025 directed the government to decide the representation within three months.
That exercise culminated in the June 2025 rejection order, which became the subject matter of the present challenge.
The government relied on a government order (GO) dated February 1, 2018, which excludes from consideration those cases that fall within the scope of Section 435 CrPC.
According to the state, Dhanapal’s conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, a Central enactment, made him ineligible for the benefit of premature release.
‘Sentence already served’
The petitioner’s principal argument was straightforward- the one-year sentence imposed under the Explosive Substances Act had already been completed decades ago.
Counsel contended that Dhanapal had served that sentence by October 20, 2005 and that the only surviving punishment was the life sentence imposed for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Therefore, the state could not continue to invoke Section 435 as a blanket obstacle to considering his request for remission.
The state, however, maintained that the mere fact of conviction under a Central enactment was sufficient to attract the bar under the 2018 government order, irrespective of whether the sentence under that law had already been undergone.
High court rejects government’s interpretation
The bench found merit in the petitioner’s contention.
Examining a series of earlier decisions, including judgments of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, the judges noted that courts had consistently held that where the sentence imposed under the Central law had already been served, Section 435 would no longer stand in the way of considering remission.
The Madras High Court particularly referred to judicial precedents which recognised that remission must be assessed in relation to the sentence that remains to be undergone.
Since Dhanapal had completed the one-year sentence under the Explosive Substances Act nearly two decades ago, the provision could not be invoked to automatically deny him consideration for premature release.
“The question of the same standing in the way of considering the plea for remission will not arise,” the Madras High Court said, analysing the effect of Section 435.
State’s later policy supports this view
The judges also pointed out that a subsequent GO issued in August 2023 had effectively accepted the same interpretation.
The later policy expressly provides that prisoners whose sentences under offences covered by Section 435(2) CrPC have already been undergone may still be considered for premature release.
According to the Madras High Court, this reflected the state’s own understanding that completion of the sentence under the Central enactment removes the obstacle posed by Section 435.
The Madras High Court observed that interpreting the 2018 GO differently would run contrary to judicial precedent and to the state’s subsequent policy position.
Matter sent back for fresh consideration
Allowing the writ petition, the Madras High Court set aside the June 5, 2025, rejection order and directed the authorities to reconsider Dhanapal’s case afresh in light of its findings.
The state has been asked to pass fresh orders within four weeks from the date of uploading the judgment.
The Madras High Court directed registrar (IT) to convene meetings of stakeholders and place a status report of prisons. (Image generated using AI) 
Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court turned its attention to systemic delays in processing remission applications. (Image enhanced using AI)
Share
