Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31564
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
LOUCY BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 645 2023
P.K.VARGHESE, DHANESH V., MADHAVAN ARJUN KUMAR, K.S.APARNA, ANIL SUDARSANAN, U.ATHUL, P M.T.SAMEER, P.S.ANISHAD, JERRY MATHEW, SOJAN K. VARGHESE, REGHU SREEDHARAN, RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ, NAMITHA K.S., ANU ASHOKAN, DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
Emergency parole must comply with established legal rules, and courts cannot grant it based on personal circumstances without substantial justification.
Headnote:
Parole - Emergency Parole - Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules 2014 - The Court emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions governing the grant of parole and clarified that parole is not at the court's discretion, but regulated by rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks emergency parole for the convict, who is incarcerated, to assist her daughter with college admission procedures after being granted multiple prior leaves, including ordinary and emergency parole.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no exceptional reasons to grant the emergency parole as the convict had already availed significant leave. The requirement for the convict's physical presence at the admission process was not substantiated by evidence.
Issues: Whether the convict should be granted emergency parole for her daughter's college admission despite previously enjoying significant leave within a short period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the grant of parole must align with established rules and cannot be based solely on the personal needs of the convict or her family without adequate justification.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition (Crl.) is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks a direction for the grant of emergency parole to petitioner’s daughter, who is convict No.FC7/2019 before the Women Prison Correctional Home, Kannur.
2. Petitioner’s daughter (hereinafter referred to as the ‘convict’, for brevity) was sentenced to life imprisonment in SC No. 130/2010 on the files of Additional Sessions Court, (Fast Track), Mavelikkara. Petitioner pleads for emergency parole, atleast for a period of seven days to enable the convict to accompany her daughter for admission at the SRM University, Chennai, where she has been offered admission, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. It was submitted that the mothers presence in the College is essential for paying the fee and for other admission related purposes.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor Sri. K.A Noushad, upon instructions, submitted that the convict had enjoyed the benefit of ordinary leave from 07.02.2023 till 25.2.2023. It was pointed out that subsequently, this Court had, in exercise of the powers under Article 226, extended the ordinary leave from 25.2.2023 to 18.03.2023 by Exhibit P4 order, taking note of the exceptional reason that the convict’s daughter was appearing for her 12th standard examinations. It was submitted that the convict thus had the benefit of enjoying leave from 07.02.2023 till 18.03.2023 and even thereafter, she was granted ordinary leave again from 01.06.2023 to 19.06.2023, including the journey time. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the present request to grant emergency parole for accompanying the convict’s daughter for admission to Chennai is not a bonafide reason and is also not a reason that falls within the purview of Rule 400 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules 2014.
4. I have considered the rival contentions.
5. Though a benevolent approach can be adopted in exceptional circumstances, especially with regard to emergency parole, the statutory provisions cannot be ignored. The convict was given the benefit of emergency parole from 25.02.2023 till 18.03.2023, considering the exceptional circumstance of the higher secondary examination of her daughter. Even thereafter, the convict was given the benefit of ordinary leave from 01.06.2023 to 19.06.2023. Within the last five months, the convict has already enjoyed the benefit of leave, either ordinary or emergency, for a total period of 60 days which is not available to any other person.
6. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in Lousy Babu v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, Tvm and others [ 2017 (1) KLT 412 ], wherein this Court had observed that no court can grant relief in excess of the time limit prescribed under the Act or Rules. It was also held that grant of parole by the constitutional court is not a largesse or a bounty to be granted at its discretion, unmindful of the rules.
7. On a perusal of Exhibit P2, this Court notices that the convict’s daughter has obtained admission in the NRI category and therefore fee has to be transferred from the NRI account to the University/College account. Petitioner’s claim that the convict has to be personally present at the college for admission of her daughter is not supported by any document. On the other hand the contention is belied by Exhibit P2 itself, which shows that the annual fee is payable in U.S dollars, indicating an account-to-account transfer.
8. Even otherwise the writ petitioner is the grandmother of the convict’s daughter and there is nothing that prevents her from accompanying the grandaughter for admission. Her availability is not denied but according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is old to accompany her granddaughter. The reason of old age to travel to Chennai is not convincing and nor is it supported by any materials. Therefore, I do not find any exceptional reason to exercise leniency or even the adoption of any extraordinary measure in the present case. Therefore, I decline to grant the relief sought.
The Writ Petition (C
