Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Jameela – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(Crl.) Nos.1201, 1103 and 1120 of 2025
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Appellant : SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED, SRI.AJIN SALAM, SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR G., SRI.MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T., SRI SANIN V.U.
For the Respondent: ADV SMT MAYA M N (PP)
Imposing conditions on convicts that restrict ordinary leave violates statutory rights, especially when no general order mandates such limitations.
Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Petitioners seek to challenge conditions imposed on convicts regarding ordinary leave rights. Court found such conditions infringed statutory rights. Court determined since no general order exists mandating such conditions, they are to be lifted. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Rights of Convicts - When multiple convicts exist, conditions restricting ordinary leave must not inhibit statutory entitlements to leave as per existing Prison Rules. If law and order is a concern, alternative measures like reporting to authorities can suffice. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge conditions imposed by the trial court on their imprisoned family members relating to the granting of ordinary leave. The claim is based on prison statutory rights affected by conditions limiting other convicts from taking leave simultaneously.
Findings of Court:
Conditions restricting convicts' right to ordinary leave removed and the requirement of reporting to local police while on leave established.
Issues: Whether the imposed conditions infringe convicts' rights; appropriateness of conditions in consideration of law and order.
Ratio Decidendi: Conditions limiting leave infringe the rights of convicts guaranteed by prison regulations; alternative measures exist to handle law and order concerns without imposing such restrictions.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the writ petitions (Para 2) |
| 2. challenges to conditions imposed on convicts (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on conditions and rights (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. deletion of condition on leave rights (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
These writ petitions are connected, and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment.
2. The sons of the petitioners in W.P(Crl) Nos.1201/2025 and 1120/2025 are undergoing imprisonment at Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thavanoor, based on the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.265/2018 by the Special Court (Trial of Offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989), Mannarkkad. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1103/2025 is the wife of another accused in the same case, who has also been directed to undergo imprisonment based on the conviction and sentence imposed therein.
3. WP(Crl)Nos.1201/2025 and 1120/2025 have been filed challenging the condition Nos.(1) and (2) in Ext.P2 order, while WP(Crl) No.1103/2025 has been filed challenging condition Nos.(1) and (2) in Ext.P1 order. The aforesaid conditions are common to all these cases. Therefore, condition Nos.(1) and (2) in Ext.P1 order, produced in WP(Crl) No.1103/2025, are extracted hereunder:
The petitioners are aggrieved by these conditions. Hence these writ petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The short point raised by the petitioners is that there are 12 accused in the above case. As per the Prison Rules, convicts are entitled 60 days of ordinary leave in a year. The 1st condition imposed in these release orders (Ext.P2 in WP(Crl)Nos.1201/2025 and 1120/2025 and Ext.P1 in WP(Crl) No.1103/2025) is that, if a convict is released on ordinary leave, the Jail Superintendent should ensure that no other convict in the same case is released on ordinary leave. It is submitted that, if such a condition is imposed, the convicts will be unable to avail the eligible leave of 60 days in a year.
6. I think there is force in the above argument.
Therefore, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions as to whether there is any general order passed by the Jail Authority or Government to the effect that such a condition is to be imposed while granting ordinary leave.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, after getting instructions, fairly submitted that there is no such order. However, it is submitted that the purpose of imposing such a condition is to ensure that no law and order issues arise while the convicts are outside the jail.
8. I am of the considered opinion that, if such a condition is imposed, that will infringe the right of the convicts to get their eligible leave as per the statute. Therefore, in cases where there is more than one accused, such a condition shall not be imposed. Accordingly, condition No.(1) is liable to be deleted.
9. The 2nd condition in the impugned orders in these cases is that convicts shall not enter the local limits of Agali Police Station. This Court has already considered this issue, in detail, in a connected case involving a convict in the same matter. Ext. P3 produced in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1103/2025 is the judgment rendered in that case. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 in W.P(Crl) No.1103/2025 is extracted below:
“5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. In a similar situation, this Court passed a judgment in WP(Crl.) No.1008/2025. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of that judgment:
“4. Admittedly, the petitioner’s son was granted ordinary leave as per Ext.P1. The house of the convict is situated within the jurisdiction of Palakkad District. Now, a condition is imposed as per Ext.P1 while granting the ordinary leave to the effect that he shall not enter the jurisdiction where his house is situated and he has to reside in his relative’s house. This Court directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions about the same. The Public Prosecutor submitte
