Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Khadeeja, W/o Ummar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) Nos.1307, 1310 and 1312 of 2025
Decided on : 07-10-2025
For the Appellant : SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED, SHRI.KRISHNAKUMAR G., SHRI.AJIN SALAM
For the Respondent: SR PP, SMT SEETHA S
Conditions imposed on convicts' ordinary leave must comply with statutory rights, and unjust limitations infringe those rights.
Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Conditions imposed for granting ordinary leave to convicts challenged - Convicts entitled to 60 days of ordinary leave annually as per Prison Rules - Conditions preventing release of co-accused and restricting local movement deemed infringing statutory rights. (Para 3, 9)
(B) Judicial oversight on prison authority's conditions - Conditions limiting leave if not backed by general orders or law found unjustifiable - Rights of convicts to avail statutory leave affirmed. (Paras 8, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitions challenge the imposition of restrictions on leave for convicts undergoing imprisonment in a specific case, which included a requirement to deny leave to other co-accused and restrict geographical movements during leave.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled against undue restrictions and affirmed that conditions imposed were excessive and violated convicts' rights.
Issues: The legality of the conditions imposed for granting ordinary leave to convicts and their compliance with statutory rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that conditions limiting the rights of convicts to avail of their statutory leave, particularly concerning co-accused restrictions, are unlawful unless justified by relevant authority orders.
Result: Writ petitions allowed with specific conditions set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. convicts challenging leave conditions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observation on judicial principles. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
These three writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these three cases by a common order.
2. The sons of the petitioners in WP(Crl.) No.1310/2025 and 1312/2025 are undergoing imprisonment at Central Prison and Correction Home, Thavanoor. The husband of the petitioner in WP(Crl.) No.1307/2025 is also undergoing imprisonment in the same jail based on the same judgment. In other words, the convicts mentioned in these writ petitions are undergoing imprisonment based on the judgment in SC No.265/2018 on the file of the Special Court – Trial of Offence under SCST(POA) Act, 1989, Mannarkkad.
3. These writ petitions are filed challenging the conditions imposed in Ext.P2 orders produced in these writ petitions, by which the convicts were given ordinary leave for 30 days. The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that there are twelve accused in the case and as per the prison rules convicts are entitled 60 days of ordinary leave in a year. One of the condition challenged in these writ petitions is that, if the Jail Superintendent should ensure that no other convicts in the same case is released on ordinary leave, when one of the convict is released. The petitioners in WP(Crl.) Nos.1310/2025 and 1307/2025 also challenged the condition to the effect that the convict shall not enter Agali Police Station limit when they are on leave.
4. This Court in a connected writ petition filed on behalf of the convicts in the same case, consider these points in detail as per judgment dated 26.09.2025 in WP(Crl.) Nos.1201, 1103 and 1120 of 2025. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
“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 leav
