Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, on 17 July 2025, declined to grant emergency parole to a life convict incarcerated at the Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur. The court dismissed the plea seeking parole for a week to attend the traditional first rice feeding (Choroonu) ceremony of the convict's child. The petitioner had moved the court requesting temporary release of her husband, who is serving a life sentence, asserting that his presence was essential for the family ritual.

In its final decision, the Court stated that convicts are entitled to parole only under extraordinary circumstances, and that judicial intervention in routine post-delivery family ceremonies could not be justified, particularly in the case of a murder convict. The writ petition, therefore, stood dismissed with the court concluding that the relief sought did not meet the threshold for grant of emergency leave under existing law.

Also Read: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Farmers After 30-Year Legal Battle | Rejects Averaging Method, Affirms Right to Highest Bona Fide Sale Exemplar in Land Acquisition Case

The matter arose out of a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 936 of 2025 filed before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner, a 36-year-old woman, approached the court seeking emergency parole for her husband, a life convict currently lodged in the Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur. The petition specifically requested temporary release of the convict for a period of one week to attend the choroonu ceremony of their child.

The petitioner's husband had previously been granted emergency leave for a period of ten days in connection with the petitioner’s delivery. The child was born on 11 February 2025 at SRKAC Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner later approached the court stating that the traditional Choroonu ceremony had been scheduled at their residence on 23 July 2025 and 26 July 2025, and requested that her husband be granted leave to be present during the ceremony.

Supporting documents included:

• Exhibit P1: A copy of a prior judgment dated 5 February 2025 in WP(Crl.) 1370/2024 of the same court.

• Exhibit P2: A copy of the birth certificate issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, Government of Kerala, dated 28 February 2025.

• Exhibit P3: A copy of the representation filed by the convict before the Superintendent dated 9 July 2025.

The petitioner argued that her husband’s presence was vital for the completion of the traditional family event, which held personal and cultural significance. It was submitted that having already been granted leave for the childbirth, a similar short-term release for a subsequent key ceremony should be permitted under humanitarian considerations. The request was limited in duration (one week), and the petitioner contended that it would not interfere with broader legal or administrative concerns.

The Court recorded the prior leave granted to the convict: "Petitioner is the wife of Sijith, Convict No.34/2021, who is undergoing imprisonment for life in the Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur. Petitioner's husband was granted emergency leave for a period of 10 days in connection with the delivery of the petitioner."

Justice Kunhikrishnan then proceeded to assess the merit of the current request: "I am of the considered opinion that a life convict is entitled to parole only in extraordinary situations, and that also as per the law in force."

In support of the decision to deny further parole, the Court stated the nature of the offence committed: "Admittedly, the convict was given parole in connection with the delivery of the petitioner. Thereafter, for all ceremonies after the delivery, this Court cannot grant parole to the convict especially because the convict is an accused in a murder case, and one court found that he is guilty."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes Cognizance in Money Laundering Case | Says Accused Must Be Heard Before Taking Cognizance Under BNSS Section 223(1)

The Court expressed that allowing parole for every postnatal or family event could erode the purpose and structure of the incarceration system: "Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to parole for traditional Choroonu (first rice feeding ceremony) of his child."

Accordingly, the judicial reasoning rested firmly on the principle that parole is an exception grounded in necessity, not an entitlement for cultural or traditional functions: "This Court cannot grant parole... especially because the convict is an accused in a murder case, and one court found that he is guilty."

"Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri. P.K. Varghese, Shri. M.T. Sameer, Shri. Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Shri. Jerry Mathew, Smt. Devika K.R., Smt. Sawparnika Raju, Smt. Gopika Santhosh

For the Respondents: Smt. Seetha S, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Anju C.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:53735

Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 936 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan