Child Will Grow Up With Stigma: Madras High Court Denies Leave To Triple Murder Convict To Undergo Fertility Treatment As
[15/05, 07:12] sekarreporter1: Child Will Grow Up With Stigma: Madras High Court Denies Leave To Triple Murder Convict To Undergo Fertility Treatment
As
https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/jalani-v-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-prisons-child-stigma-convict-fertility-treatment-1613996
*Follow India’s No.1 Free Legal News Website To Get All Judgements Of The Supreme Court & Other Legal Updates:-*
https://www.verdictum.in/social-media
[15/05, 07:12] sekarreporter1: Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court Child Will Grow Up With Stigma: Madras High Court Denies Leave To Triple Murder Convict To Undergo Fertility Treatment The petition before the Madras High Court was filed seeking the quashing of the records of the order passed by the Superintendent of Prisons. ByTulip Kanth|14 May 2026 7:30 PM Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan, Madras High Court The Madras High Court has upheld an order rejecting the request for granting leave to a triple murder convict to undergo fertility treatment while observing that the child, when it enters the world, will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life convict, who is serving a sentence for having committed a heinous crime involving triple murder. The petition before the High Court was filed seeking the quashing of the records of the order passed by the Superintendent of Prisons and consequently directing the authorities to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the petitioner’s husband. The Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held, “In the case in hand, both the petitioner and the convict are conveniently ignoring the right of a child, to be born. The child when it enters this world will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life convict, who is serving sentence for having committed a heinous crime involving triple murder. In such a scenario, this Court cannot merely act upon the right that is claimed by the petitioner and ignore the interest of the child, which will carry such a stigma throughout its life.” Also Read – Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Alleged Stone Pelting And Threat Case Registered During Police Custody Advocate S.Srikanth represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor A.Thiruvadi Kumar represented the Respondent. Factual Background The petition was filed by the wife of a convict, who underwent trial on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Act Cases. The convict was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on three counts. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents seeking ordinary leave on the ground that the petitioner was desirous of having a child through the convict, and for this purpose, the petitioner had to undergo fertility treatment. Therefore, ordinary leave was sought for on this ground. Upon rejection of the representation made by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition came to be filed before the High Court. Also Read – Madras High Court Issues Notice On Congress MP R Sudha’s Plea Challenging Rajiv Gandhi Assassin’s Enrolment As Advocate Reasoning On a perusal of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the Bench explained that Rule 20 deals with the grounds for the grant of ordinary leave but does not provide for granting ordinary leave to enable the petitioner and/or the convict to undergo fertility treatment. “As was rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not dealing with a right of the convict and at the best, what has been granted under the Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 is only a privilege and therefore, we have to necessarily satisfy ourselves that such privilege is sought for in accordance with the requirements provided under the Rules”, it added. Showing its concern regarding the welfare of the child, the Bench stated that the child, if born, would face consequences psychologically exerted by society for the heinous acts committed by the convict. “The theory of reformation is focused on the convict and that has nothing to do with the desire of a convict to have a child, which for no fault on its part is going to carry a stigma throughout its life. Neither the petitioner nor the convict will have the right to place the child in such an unfortunate position right through its life”, it stated. Thus, finding no illegality with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition. Cause Title: A v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Case No.: W.P.CRl..(MD).No.1695 of 2026) Click here to read/download Order Madras High CourtJustice N Anand VenkateshJustice KK Ramakrishnan Tulip Kanth Assistant Editor Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University. SIMILAR POSTS Madras High Court Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Alleged Stone Pelting And Threat Case Registered… Madras High Court Madras High Court Issues Notice On Congress MP R Sudha’s Plea Challenging Rajiv Gandhi Assassin’s… Madras High Court Magistrate Taking Cognizance U/S 384 BNSS Before “Rising Of Court” Is Valid: Madras High Court… Madras High Court Selection Committee’s Assessment Not Open To Interference Absent Serious Concerns: Madras High Court… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Advertise with Us Newsletter © Copyright 2025Powered by Hocalwire
https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/jalani-v-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-prisons-child-stigma-convict-fertility-treatment-1613996
[15/05, 07:12] Meta AI: *Madras High Court – May 13, 2026*
*Jalani v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons*
*Bench*: Justices *N. Anand Venkatesh* & *K.K. Ramakrishnan* f1c8
*1. Facts*
1. *Petitioner*: Jalani, wife of *I. Muthumani*, life convict in the *Kachanatham triple murder case* of 3 SC persons in Sivaganga, 2018.
2. *Conviction*: Special SC/ST Court sentenced Muthumani to life on *3 counts* on *Aug 5, 2022*. HC confirmed on *Feb 26, 2026*. No SC appeal – conviction final.
3. *Plea*: Jalani sought *21 days ordinary leave* for husband _without escort_ to undergo *fertility treatment* so she could have a child.
4. *Prison rejection*: DIG Prisons rejected on *Sep 11, 2025* citing *life threat to convict + law & order problem*. Probation officer verified reason was true but didn’t recommend release. bdfcf1c8
*2. Court’s Reasoning – Why Leave Denied*
1. *Child’s rights ignored*: _“Both the petitioner and the convict were conveniently ignoring the right of a child to be born”_.
2. *Stigma*: _“The child when it enters this world will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life convict, who is serving sentence for having committed a heinous crime involving triple murder”_. _“Neither the petitioner nor the convict will have the right to place the child in such an unfortunate position right through its life”_.
3. *Reformation theory*: _“The theory of reformation is focused on the convict and that has nothing to do with the desire of a convict to have a child, which for no fault on its part is going to carry a stigma throughout its life”_.
4. *Leave not a right*: Under *Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982*, leave is _“only a privilege given to a convict”_ and can’t be claimed as matter of right. 120ef1c8bdfcb62b
*3. Legal Context – Infertility Treatment & Leave*
Earlier, Madras HC 3-judge bench held: _“Denial of conjugal relationship for specific purpose may amount to denial of fundamental right under Article 21. The specific purpose may be infertility treatment”_. But it _“should not be construed to be a fundamental right for having conjugal relationship as a course”_. Leave can be under Rule 20(vii) _“any other extraordinary reason”_. a400b07a
*Why different here?* Court distinguished: In this case, convict is serving life for *triple murder*, conviction final, and court prioritized _“interest of the child”_ over parents’ desire. b62b
*4. Outcome*
Petition dismissed. Court refused to interfere with DIG’s order. 351a
*Bottom line*: Madras HC held that a triple-murder life convict can’t get leave for fertility treatment because the _“child would grow up with stigma”_ of being born to a heinous crime convict. Court said parents have no right to place a child in that position for life, and leave under TN Rules is only a privilege, not a right.
Verdictum article: https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/jalani-v-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-prisons-child-stigma-convict-fertility-treatment-1613996
Want the full text of Rule 20 or prior judgments where leave was granted for infertility?
[15/05, 07:12] Meta AI: *Case*: _A v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons_ [W.P.(Crl).MD No.1695 of 2026]
*Date*: May 13, 2026 | *Bench*: Justices *N. Anand Venkatesh* & *K.K. Ramakrishnan*, Madras HC
*1. What the case was about*
Petitioner *Jalani* challenged DIG Prisons’ order rejecting *21 days ordinary leave without escort* for her husband *I. Muthumani*, a life convict in the *Kachanatham triple murder case*.
*Reason for leave*: Wife wanted to undergo *fertility treatment* to have a child with the convict.
*Conviction status*: Muthumani sentenced to *life on 3 counts* by SC/ST Special Court on *Aug 5, 2022*. Madras HC confirmed on *Feb 26, 2026*. No SC appeal – conviction final. Lodged in *Madurai Central Prison*.
*2. Why HC denied leave – Key holdings*
**Ground** **Court’s reasoning**
**Child’s stigma** *“The child when it enters this world will grow up with a stigma that it is the child of a life convict, who is serving sentence for having committed a heinous crime involving triple murder”*. Parents have no right to *“place the child in such an unfortunate position right through its life”*.
**Child’s rights** *“Both the petitioner and the convict are conveniently ignoring the right of a child, to be born”*. Court can’t ignore *“interest of the child, which will carry such a stigma throughout its life”*.
**Leave not a right** Under **Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982**, leave is *“only a privilege”* not a right. **Rule 20** doesn’t provide fertility treatment as a ground.
**Reformation theory** *“Theory of reformation is focused on the convict and that has nothing to do with the desire of a convict to have a child, which for no fault on its part is going to carry a stigma”*.
**Law & order** Probation officer noted possible *“life threat to the convict and law-and-order problem”* if released.
*3. Rule 20, TN Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982*
Court noted Rule 20 lists grounds like death/marriage in family, agriculture, etc. *No ground for fertility treatment*. Even Rule 20(vii) _“any other extraordinary reason”_ wasn’t invoked successfully here because of the heinous nature of crime + child’s welfare.
*4. Outcome*
*Writ Petition dismissed*. HC upheld Superintendent’s order dated Sep 11, 2025. _“No illegality”_ found.
*5. Wider context*
Earlier, a Madras HC 3-judge bench had said denial of conjugal relationship for _“specific purpose like infertility treatment”_ may violate Article 21. But this 2-judge bench distinguished: _heinous triple murder + final conviction + child’s stigma_ outweighs claim.
*Related updates in same report:*
1. *Savukku Shankar* granted bail in stone pelting case during police custody.
2. *Notice issued* on Congress MP R. Sudha’s plea challenging Rajiv Gandhi assassin’s enrolment as advocate.
*Bottom line*: HC said 1098 helpline is for distressed kids, not for misuse. Here, it said wanting a child from a triple-murder convict ignores the _“psychological consequences society will exert”_ on that child. Leave denied to protect child from lifelong stigma.
Link: https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/jalani-v-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-prisons-child-stigma-convict-fertility-treatment-1613996
