Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
Jisha Jose – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO.783 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. John Sebastian Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Geethu T.A., Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith P.S, Devika Manoj, Ashuthosh P. Kamath
For the Respondents: Sangeetharaj N.R

Parole conditions restricting a convict from visiting an ailing family member are liable to be set aside if the underlying law and order concerns can be managed through police monitoring, as such restrictions disproportionately infringe upon the familial obligations of the convict.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a condition in a parole order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which restricted her husband from entering the jurisdictional limits of a specific police station. The restriction prevented him from visiting his bedridden father. The court held that while law and order concerns are valid, they should be managed by the relevant police authorities rather than through a blanket travel restriction that infringes upon the prisoner’s right to care for an ailing family member. The primary issue was whether the restriction imposed in the parole order was unreasonable. The court reasoned that absolute prohibition is disproportionate to the stated administrative concerns, which can be effectively addressed through proper monitoring by the station house officer and the district police chief. The writ petition stands allowed, and the specific condition restricting the convict's entry into the police station limits is set aside, subject to ensure no untoward incidents occur.

Table of Content
1. challenge to restrictive parole conditions preventing home visitation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court intervention to remove unreasonable parole conditions through police monitoring. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the condition imposed by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P3 - leave / parole order restricting the entry of the petitioner’s husband (convict No.306/23 of Central Prison, Kannur) into the limits of Kelakam Police Station in Kannur District, during the period of regular leave granted under Ext.P4 - order. It is stated that the aforesaid restriction has been causing great hardships to the convict, since he is not able to attend his father, who is remaining bedridden at his home in Kelakam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. It appears that the law and order concerns of the authorities are the reason for imposing such a restriction in Ext.P3 - order. However, such concerns are to be tackled by the District Police Chief concerned and the SHO having jurisdiction over the place of residence of the father of the convict. Since condition No.1 in Ext.P3 is infringing the right of the petitioner’s husband to visit his ailing father, who is said to be at his home in Kelakam, the aforesaid condition is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed as follows:-

(i) Condition No.1 in Ext.P3 - leave / parole order restricting the entry of convict No.306/23 ‘Sri.Thachanalil Shyju’ into the limits of Kelakam Police Station, is hereby set aside.

(ii) The SHO, Kelakam Police Station, and the District Police Chief concerned, shall ensure that no untoward incidents happen due to the visit of the convict to his home at Kelakam.

(iii) Respondents 2 and 3 shall release the above said convict in accordance with Ext.P4 - order, if the other conditions are fulfilled.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMG. Girish, JJisha Jose – AppellantVersusState Of Kerala – RespondentWP(CRL.) NO.783 OF 2026

Parole conditions restricting a convict from visiting an ailing family member are liable to be set aside if the underlying law and order concerns can be managed through police monitoring, as such restrictions disproportionately infringe upon the familial obligations of the convict.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
Jisha Jose – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO.783 OF 2026