SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
PRABHASINI T.K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 307 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ, PP

The principle of parity in legal relief for convicts allows for equal treatment in granting permissions.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a writ petition where the petitioner, mother of a convict, sought modification of a Government Order restricting her son from entering his home district. The court noted a similar prior ruling for a co-convict and allowed authorities to reconsider the request for leave. The petition was decisively resolved, optimizing parity in treatment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's relationship to convict. (Para 1)
2. invocation of previous court order for equality. (Para 2)
3. arguments about permission and restrictions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. court's directive based on parity principle. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the mother of convict No.705/17 lodged at Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur. He is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgment dated 28.01.2014 in S.C.No.867/2012. The petitioner seeks modification of Ext.P1 Government Order, whereby the convict has been restricted from entering Kannur District, where his house is situated.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a co-convict by name Sri.Anoop has been granted same relief by this Court by order dated 05.12.2025 in W.P.(Crl)

No.1473 of 2025.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor objected the application holding that as the petitioner has not been granted leave, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the cause of action for filing a Writ Petition arises only when the competent authority considers his request for leave.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Jail Authorities have been granting leave to the convict pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1, and lastly in October 2025, he was granted leave.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, at any rate, the convict shall not be permitted to enter Kozhikode District, where the offence was committed.

6. In view of the fact that a co-convict was given the relief sought for by the petitioner as per Ext.P2, applying the principle of parity, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to permit the convict to enter Kannur District, while considering his request for leave, notwithstanding the restrictions contained in Ext.P1 Government Order.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top