JUDGMENT The writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the writ court dated 24-8-2012 made in WP No. 9331/2012 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 20-6-2012 and directing the appellants/respondents to grant ordinary leave of 90 days to the brother of the writ petitioner, viz. Abuthahir, a life convict, convict No. 1478, who is undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, for the purpose of taking treatment in a private hospital of his choice. 2. Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants would contend that the writ appeal itself has been preferred on the legal ground by placing reliance on Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. It is contended that the Writ Court has granted the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days and the said order is contrary to the specific provision contained under Rule 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. As per the said provision, the prisoner shall be granted the second spell of leave not exceeding one month after the completion of two years of imprisonment from the date on which he returns from the last ordinary leave. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the life convict in this case, viz. Abuthahir, has been granted the relief of ordinary leave for 13 times and the total number of days granted under the relief of ordinary leave is 1050 days and such being the position, the said life convict cannot be granted ordinary leave for a further period of 90 days. 3. Learned Advocate General contended that the respondent/writ petitioner also filed HCP No. 763/2012 before this Court and this Court granted the relief of direction to the appellants herien and to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore by its order dated 8-2-2013, to admit the life convict, viz. Abuthahir, S/o. Ibrahim, to G. Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Nethaji Road, Pappanaickenpalaya, Coimbatore. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that in compliance of the direction given by this Court, the authorities have passed an order dated 9-2-2013 admitting the life convict, Abuthahir, in G. Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore on 9-2-2013 at 19-25 hours. It is contended that the life convict is undergoing treatment in the said hospital as an in-patient. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that in compliance of the direction given by this Court, the authorities have passed an order dated 9-2-2013 admitting the life convict, Abuthahir, in G. Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore on 9-2-2013 at 19-25 hours. It is contended that the life convict is undergoing treatment in the said hospital as an in-patient. He would also submit that the order passed by this Court was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge while hearing the matter in a contempt petition in Cont. P. No. 324/2013 and on the same day, i.e. on 8-2-2013, the learned single Judge has ordered statutory notice to the Home Secretary. It is contended that in view of the orders passed by this Court, it is for the petitioner in HCP No. 763/2012 (respondent in the writ appeal) not to pursue the said contempt proceedings. 4. We have heard Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in WA. No. 2094/2012, Mr. Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cont. P. No. 324/2012 as well as Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP No. 763/2012 on the submissions made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in the writ appeal. 5. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent in the writ appeal would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Writ Court in granting the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days to the life convict, Abuthahir. It is contended that as per the provisions under Rule 40, the Government is empowered to grant exemption to any person from all or any of the provisions of these Rules and such being the position, there is no illegality in granting the relief of 90 days ordinary leave. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that even on an earlier occasion, by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 10719/2008, by the order dated 30-4-2008, this Court granted similar relief of 90 days ordinary leave. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no illegality in granting such relief through the impugned order passed by the writ court in the present case. 6. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner in the Hebeas Corpus Petition would contend that the main relief sought for in the HCP. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no illegality in granting such relief through the impugned order passed by the writ court in the present case. 6. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner in the Hebeas Corpus Petition would contend that the main relief sought for in the HCP. No. 763/2012 is the premature release of the life convict on the ground of his incurable disease and the same may be left open. 7. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the earlier orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 10719/2008 dated 30-4-2008; in W.P. No. 31958/2012 dated 3-12-2012 as well as the impugned order passed by the Writ Court in WP. No. 9331/2012 dated 24-8-2012. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that in the writ appeal as well as the in Habeas Corpus Petition, the common issue involved is to the effect of the serious illness of the life convict Abuthahir, who is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in the Central Prison, Coimbatore and whether he is entitled to get the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days and expert treatment from a specialised private hospital. At the risk of repetition. It is to be reiterated that while passing the order dated 8-2-2013 in HCP No. 763/2012, we have placed reliance on the medical report incorporated in the impugned order of the writ Court. The said report was submitted by the Expert Medical Committee of the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, and in the said report it is specifically stated as hereunder : Even though his general condition is stable with the present treatment, his renal function and cardiac function deteriorated further now. As the disease is progressive in nature, cardiac function and renal function will further deteriorate over a period of time. Anyhow, he needs coronary Angiogram to decide on further management. Coronary angiogram facility is not available at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. Hence, he is advised to attend Higher Centre at Chennai for Coronary Angiogram and further treatment. He may need dialysis and renal transplanation as the disease progresses later. At present he may be treated as out-patient. Anyhow, he needs coronary Angiogram to decide on further management. Coronary angiogram facility is not available at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. Hence, he is advised to attend Higher Centre at Chennai for Coronary Angiogram and further treatment. He may need dialysis and renal transplanation as the disease progresses later. At present he may be treated as out-patient. We have also observed in the said order as here under : A reading of the above said report submitted by the Expert Medical Committee of the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore makes it crystal clear that the detenu is suffering from serious illness. It is specifically stated that the said disease is progressive in nature which would cause deterioration in respect of cardiac and renal functions. It is also stated that he requires coronary angiogram to decide further management and it is also specifically stated that the said facility is not available at Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. But, unfortunately it is reported that the said orders have not been complied with till date and a contempt petition was filed. Though, it is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that a writ appeal was filed and the same is pending on the file of this Court, it is pertinent to note that till date, no interim stay has been granted in the said writ appeal. We have placed reliance on the landmark decision of the Honble Apex Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1579 : (1980 Cri LJ 1099) and incorporated the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court. It is worthwhile to reiterate the said principles which reads as hereunder : [D] Constitution of India, Arts. 32, 226 Prison excess Rights of prisoner and duties of Court : Where the rights of a prisoner either under the Constitution or under other law, are violated the writ power of the Court can and should run to his rescue. There is a warrant for this vigil. The Court process casts the convict into the prison system and the deprivation of his freedom is not a blind penitentiary affliction but a belighted institutionali-sation geared to a social good. The Court has a continuing responsibility to ensure that the constitutional purpose of the deprivation is not defeated by the prison administration. AIR 1978 SC 1675 : (1978 Cri LJ 1741), Reiterated. The Court has a continuing responsibility to ensure that the constitutional purpose of the deprivation is not defeated by the prison administration. AIR 1978 SC 1675 : (1978 Cri LJ 1741), Reiterated. (Para 30) Whether inside prison or outside, a person shall not be deprived of his guaranted freedom save by methods right, just and fair AIR 1978 SC 597 , Ref. (Para 30) A prisoner wears the armour of basic freedom even behind bars and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will respond to his distress signals through writ aid. The Indian human has a constant companion the Court armed with the Constitution. The weapon is habeas the power is Part III and the projectile is Batra ( AIR 1978 SC 1675 ). It is therefore, the Courts concern implicit in the power to deprive the sentence of his personal liberty, to ensure that no more and no less than is warranted by the sentence happens. If the prisoner breaks down because of mental torture, psychic pressure or physical infliction beyond the licit limits of lawful imprisonment the Prison Administration shall be liable for the excess. On the contrary, if an influential convict is able to buy advantages and liberties to avoid or water down the deprivation implied in the sentence the prison establishment will be called to order for such adulteration or dilution of Court sentences by executive palliation, if unwarranted by law. (Para 31) (E) Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19, 21, 32, 226 rights of prisoners and remedies for denial of these rights. Rights jurisprudence is important but becomes an abstraction in the absence of remedial jurisprudence. Law is not an omnipotence in the sky but a loaded gun which, when triggered by trained men with ballistic skill, strikes the offending bulls eye. No prisoner can be personally subjected to deprivations not necessitated by the fact of incarceration and the sentence of Court. All other freedoms belong to him to read and write, to exercise and recreation, to meditation and chant, to creative comforts like protection from extreme cold and heat, to freedom from indignities like compulsory nudity, forced sodomy and other unbearable vulgarity, to movement within the prison campus subject to requirements of discipline and security, to a minimal joys of self expression, to acquire skills and techniques and all other fundamental rights tailored to the limitations of imprisonment. AIR 1974 SC 2092 : (1975 Cri LJ 556) affirmed. (Para 42) The problem of law, when it is called upon to defend persons hidden by the law, is to evolve a positive culture and higher consciousness and preventive mechanisms, sensitized strategies and humanist agencies which will bring healing balm to bleeding hearts. Inflictions may take many protean forms, apart from physical assaults. Pushing a prisoner into a solitary cell, denial of necessary amenity, and more dreadful sometimes, transfer to a distant prison where visits or society of friends or relations may be snapped, allotment of degrading labour, assigning him to a desperate or tough gang and the like, may be punitive in effect. Every such affliction or abridgement is an infraction of liberty or lie in its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Article 21 is satisfied. There must be a corrective legal procedure, fair and reasonable and effective. Such infraction will be arbitrary, under Art. 14, if it is dependent on unguided discretion, unreasonable under Art. 19 if it is irremediable and unappealable and unfair, under Art. 21 if it violates natural justice. Strict compliance with norms and institutional provisions set out in AIR 1978 SC 1675 , directed. (Paras 47 & 48) The Honble Apex Court in the same decision in paragraph 31 has held as here under : ............................ 31............................ No iron curtain can be drawn between the prisoner and the Constitution. It is, therefore, the Courts concern, implicit in the power to deprive the sentences of his personal liberty, to ensure that no more and no less than is warranted by the sentence happens. If the prisoner breaks down because of mental torture, psychic pressure or physical; infliction beyond the licit limits of lawful imprisonment the Prison Administration shall be liable for the excess (sic). On the contrary, if an influential convict is able to buy advantages and liberties to avoid or water down the deprivation implied in the sentence the Prison Establishment will be called to order for such adulteration or dilution of Court sentences by executive palliation, if unwarranted by law. On the contrary, if an influential convict is able to buy advantages and liberties to avoid or water down the deprivation implied in the sentence the Prison Establishment will be called to order for such adulteration or dilution of Court sentences by executive palliation, if unwarranted by law. One of us, in Batra observed : Suffice it to say that, so long as judges are invigilators and enforces of constitutionality and performance auditors of legality, and convicts serve terms in that grim microcosm called prison by the mandate of the Couts, a continuing institutional responsibility vests in the system to monitor in the incarceratory process and prevent security excesses Jailors are bound by the rule of law and cannot inflict supplementary sentence under disguises or defeat the primary purposes of imprisonment........... Ultimately, on the basis of the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Sunil Batras case (1980 Cri LJ 1099) cited supra and on the basis of the report submitted by the Expert Medical Committee of the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, we passed the following order : 11. Accordingly, we are constrained to direct the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore to shift the detenu, viz. I. Abuthahir, S/o. Ibrahim, immediately to G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Nethaji Road, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-641 037 with full escort police officials. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such admission of the detenu, the said hospital, viz. G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore, shall give necessary treatment by taking all necessary tests and investigations regarding his health condition of the detenu. The expenses should be met by the State Government. 12. The detenu shall be kept in the said hospital for continuous treatment for a period of 90 days. In the event of any further progress and improvement in the health condition, it is open to the authorities concerned to approach this Court. The expenses should be met by the State Government. 12. The detenu shall be kept in the said hospital for continuous treatment for a period of 90 days. In the event of any further progress and improvement in the health condition, it is open to the authorities concerned to approach this Court. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Advocate General that the order passed by this Court dated 8-2-2013 was already complied with as per the order dated 9-2-2013 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore to the effect of shifting the life convict Abuthahir, S/o. Ibrahim, Convict No. 1478 to G. Kumaraswamy Naidu Memorial Hospiral, Coimbatore and admitted him as an In-patient of 9-2-2013 at 19.25 hours. 9. The main contention of the learned Advocate General is to the effect that the impugned order passed by the writ Court granting the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days is contrary to the provisions under Section 22(3) of the Tamilnadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The said rule reads as here under : 22. Eligibility for ordinary leave : (1) to (2) ....................... (3) The prisoner shall be granted the second spell of leave not exceeding one month after the completion of two years of imprisonment from the date on which he returns from the last ordinary leave. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on the above said rule, viz. Rule 22(3) of the Tamilnadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and submitted that the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days cannot be granted to the life convict in the instant case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent in the writ appeal/writ petitioner that there is also a provision under Section 4 of the same Tamilnadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 to the effect that the Government may exempt any person from all or any of the provisions of these rules. The said Rule reads as here under : 40. Power to exempt: The Government may exempt any person from all or any of the provisions of these rules. Therefore, it is contended that the Government can very well consider the exigency and the condition of the prisoner like the instant case and exempt the said provision under Rule 22 and grant the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days. Power to exempt: The Government may exempt any person from all or any of the provisions of these rules. Therefore, it is contended that the Government can very well consider the exigency and the condition of the prisoner like the instant case and exempt the said provision under Rule 22 and grant the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days. As a matter of fact, even on an earlier occasion, this Court granted the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days in respect of the very same life convict in WP. No. 10719/2008 by the order dated 30-4-2008. It is pertainent to note that the learned single Judge also passed an order dated 3-12-2002 in W.P. No. 31956/2012 directing the appellants herein to shift the life convict Abuthahirm, from the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, to G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore on the same day, i.e. on 3-12-2012 itself, by providing sufficient escorts at the cost of the State. It is also observed by the learned single Judge that if the life convict recovers after treatment, it is open to the authorities to shift him to the Central Prison, Coimbatore. 10. However, as per the present condition of the life convict which was very much evident from the report of the Expert Medical Committee of the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, the learned single Judge has rightly passed the order granting the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days for the purpose of getting expert treatment in a private hospital. In our earlier order dated 8-2-2013 made in HCP No. 763/2012, we have taken note of the serious illness of the life convict more particularly to the effect that the said disease is progressive in nature and cardiac function and renal function are deteriorating and will further deteriorate over a period of time as per the report of the Expert Medical Commitee and thought it fit to shift the life convict forthwith to the specialised hospital, viz. G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore. The said view was taken by us particularly on the basis of the report of the Expert Medical Committee to the effect that the facilities were not available in the said Government Hospital as the life convict may need dialysis and renal transplantation in future as the disease is progressive in nature. G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore. The said view was taken by us particularly on the basis of the report of the Expert Medical Committee to the effect that the facilities were not available in the said Government Hospital as the life convict may need dialysis and renal transplantation in future as the disease is progressive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that the life convict was granted the relief of ordinary leave of 90 days periodically, totalling to 1050 days and there is absolutely no adverse report against him and it is also seen that the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore/3rd appellant himself has recommended for the admission of the life convict in a private specialized hospital. We have also felt that it is not possible for the family members of the life convict to bear heavy cost of the treatment as they are not affluent or well off people and as such, on humanitarian consideration, we were constrained to pass the order on 8-2-2013 to admit the life convict in the specialised private hospital, viz. G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Nethaji Road, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore. 11. It is already stated that the said order was also complied with by the authorities concerned as per the order dated 9-2-2013 and the life convict has been shifted immediately to the above said private hospital and he has been under treatment as an in-patient as on date. In addition to that, we are also constrained to give further relief to the life convict to the effect of allowing his close kith and kin to visit him. His wife, children, mother and other close relatives are entitled to visit the life convict and be with him during the visiting hours of the hospital and if the hospital authorities allows anyone of the kith and kin to stay with the life convict throughout by rotation, the said relatives shall be permitted to be with him during the course of treatment given to him. We have already made it very clear that the life convict should be given treatment for a period of 90 days in our earlier order dated 8-2-2013 and if the life convict requires further continuous treatment exceeding 90 days, it is for the Medical Experts attached to the said private hospital to take a decision and the life convict may be allowed to take continuous treatment exceeding 90 days. The appellants as well as the respondent in the writ appeal are entitled to approach this Court for any further relief after completion of 90 days period depending upon the opinion of the Medical Experts regarding the health condition of the life confict. We are also constrained to reiterate, as we have already directed in our earlier order dated 8-2-2013, that the appellants shall bear the entire cost of treatment of the life convict, Abuthahir, S/o. Ibrahim, convict No. 1478 in the said private hospital. As far as the main relief sought for in HCP No. 763/2012, viz. premature release of the life convict on the ground of incurable disease suffered by him and on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 1155 of 2003, the said point is left open to the petitioner to agitate in future. 12. Mr. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cont. P. No. 324/2013 would submit that he will get appropriate instructions from his party for the closure of the contempt proceedings. 13. To sum up, we dispose of the Habeas Corpus petition in HCP No. 763/2012 by issuing the following directions in addition to our earlier direction made in the said petition on 8-2-2013 : (1) The close relatives of the life convict Abuthahir including his wife, mother and children are entitled to visit him and be with him during the visting hours of the hospital. (2) If the hospital authorities allows anyone of the kith and kin to stay with the life convict throughout by rotation, the said relatives shall be permitted to be with him during the course of his treatment. (3) As per our earlier order dated 8-2-2013, the life convict should be given treatment for a period of 90 days from the date of his admission in the said private hospital and if the life convict requires further continuous treatment exceeding 90 days, it is for the Medical Experts attached to the said private hospital to take a decision and the life convict may be allowed to take continuous treatment exceeding 90 days. (4) The life convict Abuthahir, during the course of his treatment in the hospital, shall be provided with Escort police officials for his safety and security. (4) The life convict Abuthahir, during the course of his treatment in the hospital, shall be provided with Escort police officials for his safety and security. (5) The appellants as well as the respondent in the writ appeal are entitled to approach this Court for any further relief after completion of 90 days period depending upon the opinion of the Medical Experts regarding the health condition of the life convict. (6) We are also constrained to reiterate, as we have already directed in our earlier order dated 8-2-2013, that the appellants shall bear the entire cost of treatment of the life convict, Abuthahir, S/o. Ibrahim, convict No. 1478 in the said private hospital. 7. As far as the main relief sought for in HCP. No. 763/2012, viz., premature release of the life convict on the ground of incurable disease suffered by him and on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 1155 of 2003, the said point is left open for the parties to agitate in future. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9331/2012 dated 24-8-2012 warranting interference of this Court. As we have disposed of the Habeas Corpus Petition with the above directions, viz. to admit the life convict, Abuthahir, as in In-patient in the private specialised hospital, via. G. Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Nethaji Road, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore for a period of 90 days initially at the cost of the State and leaving open the main relief sought for in the Habeas Corpus petition, viz. premature release of the life convict, the writ appeal in WA. No. 2094/2012 is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Order accordingly.