IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Swathi Sibi, W/o. Sibi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001 and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No.188 of 2022 & W.P. (Crl.) No.236 of 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 - Rule 400, 397, 404, 462, 463 (2) - Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 - Sec. 73, 78, 77(1)- Granting parole/ leave to two convicts - Grant of leave - Emergency leave - Whether there is any confusion, lack of clarity in powers conferred on District Level Review Committee and Jail Level Advisory Committee - Whether District Level Review Committee and Jail Level Advisory Committee are bound by adverse police Reports - Court hope and trust that the formal amendment of the Rules could be carried out, after due consideration, without much delay. (Para 51).
Findings of the Court: Pending amendment of Rules, 8th respondent- State Government may issue necessary executive orders, so that these directions are put in place and implemented without any further delay - During course of hearing of this case, Court also observed that State may, seriously consider whether some more additional responsibilities for resolving various issues faced by prison inmates could be addressed to a functionary like Chairperson of State Level Advisory Committee, who is a former High Court Judge, so that services of such a high functionary could be appropriately utilized. This aspect of matter should also immediately reach serious attention of State Government and necessary advice to learned Advocate General/learned Additional Advocate General may also be sought. The considered views of Chairperson of State Level Advisory Committee may also be sought in this regard. The opportunity can certainly be used by State authorities for seriously enforcing action for necessary resolution of various problems and grievances faced by prison inmates.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
[Alexander Thomas, J.]
-V.R. Krishna Iyer in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, [(1979) 4 SCC 413: AIR 1980 SC 249]
1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), W.P.(Crl).No. 188/2022 are as follows:
ii. To grant any such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice."
2. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), W.P.(Crl).No. 236/2022 are as follows:
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P3 application for parole to the husband of the petitioner, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
iii) To issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case."
3. Heard Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 188/2022, Sri.K.R.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 236/2022 and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Addl. Advocate General instructed and assisted by Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in these two cases.
4. After hearing both sides, a Division Bench of this Court has already passed a detailed common order on 7.4.2022 in these two cases, whereby the relief of leave/parole was granted to the sole petitioners in these two cases and certain other observations were also made by this Court for considering the impact of certain provisions in the Prisons' Rules concerned. We are now told by both sides that the benefit of the interim order of granting parole/ leave to the two convicts concerned has already been given by the respondents and the same has already been worked out.
5. In para No.9 on pages 10 and 11 of the abovesaid order dated 7.4.2022 this Court had specifically ordered that the convicts concerned, who are the relatives of the petitioners, shall be released on parole on execution of the requisite bond and after furnishing two solvent sureties and with certain other conditions and the release on parole was ordered to be for a period of one month. As the convicts have already been released on parole, in compliance with the abovesaid order dated 7.4.2022, and as the said one month period is already over, it is ordered, in the interest of justice, that the directions issued by this Court, for grant of parole/leave as above, will stand approved in this judgment as well. In case the convicts concerned have any further grievances, regarding grant of leave/parole, in future, it is for them to seek such benefit in accordance with the rules and the norms. Therefore, no further orders and directions are required, as regards the main prayers made in these W.P.(Crl)s., in the matter of grant of parole/leave to the two convicts concerned. However, we have to deal with certain other issues regarding the impact of certain provisions of the Rules concerned, mainly the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2
Phul Singh v. State of Haryana
All India Judge’s Association v. Union of India
All India Judge’s Association (II) v. Union of India
Unilateral action by Executive Officers of State will be in derogation of well established constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as independence and autonomy of judiciary.
Point of Law : Sec. 73 of Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 deals with release on parole of convicted prisoners.
Parole is a concession for good behavior, not a right, and must be granted with consideration of rehabilitation, irrespective of family objections, unless supported by independent evaluation.
The Committee for premature release must meet regularly to timely consider applications; failure to do so infringes the rights of convicts entitled to such reviews.
Where any convict undergoing life imprisonment has already been released on bail by orders of Court, order granting interim bail shall continue to remain in operation until disposal of application fo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to relax the criteria for granting parole and temporary bail to reduce the prison population and prevent the spread of COVID-19 among pris....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to relax the criteria for parole and temporary bail to effectively reduce overcrowding in prisons and protect prisoners from the COVID-19 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of prison personnel, particularly Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Jail, should be in accordance with the established r....
The court established that life convicts' applications for premature release must be processed promptly, requiring the committee to meet every two months.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.