Prison regulations limit educational opportunities for under-trial prisoners based on security risks, and courts must be reluctant to override these regulations in the interest of public safety.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39857 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant-petitioner is an under-trial prisoner who has been in judicial custody in Viyyur High Security Prison in S.C.No.1/2020/NIA/KOC, on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the appellant are punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’ for short) and Sections 13 , 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 . The appellant is arrayed as the 4^th accused in the said sessions case.

2.1. The appellant pleads that he is a B.Tech Graduate, who is desirous to continue his learning process, and appeared for the Kerala Entrance Examination for 3 Year LLB course conducted by the Kerala Law Entrance Commissioner for the academic year 2024-25 as per the permission granted by the Special Court. In the Entrance examination, he secured 35^th rank and got allotment in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. Thereafter, he approached the trial court for permission to complete admission formalities and by virtue of Ext.P1 order dated 23.09.2024 of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, he was permitted to complete admission formalities, and he took admission in the said college.

2.2. The classes for 3 year LLB Course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam, were started on 01.11.2024. The appellant is not in a position to attend the classes physically, as he is under judicial custody in connection with the sessions case mentioned above. On behalf of the appellant, his brother sent Exts.P3 and P4 representations dated 07.11.2024 to the Vice Chancellor of the 1^st respondent, Mahatma Gandhi University, and the 2^nd respondent, Principal of Government Law College, Ernakulam, through email, requesting to permit the appellant to attend the classes through online mode. But no reply has been received from respondents 1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to make necessary arrangements for enabling the petitioner to undergo his LLB course of study in the 2^nd respondent College through online mode; and In case, the presence of the petitioner is insisted by the 2^nd respondent for attending exams, seminar or moot court appropriate direction may be issued to the 3^rd respondent to provide escort visit to the petitioner for the said purposes.”

3. In the writ petition, the 3^rd respondent, Superintendent, High Security Prison, Viyyur, filed a counter affidavit dated 09.01.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(f) documents. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that the appellant, who is an under-trial prisoner under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, has no legal right to pursue a course of study conducted outside the prison premises through regular attendance or via online mode. Similarly, there is no legal duty cast upon the respondents to provide such facilities to an undertrial prisoner like the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant did not make any specific request to the respondents for such facilities, nor have the respondents denied any such request. Therefore, the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226