Kerala High Court Directs Expeditious Decision On Book Publication Request By UAPA Convict
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun held that the authorities must decide within three months on a prisoner's request to publish a manuscript submitted from custody, directing the State to examine the text and communicate its conclusion promptly. The Court noted that the dispute concerned a convict seeking permission to release a book written during incarceration, a request pending without resolution. It observed that conviction or confinement does not fully strip a person of fundamental rights and that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 allow inmates to read and write without restriction unless the content is harmful. The Court therefore required a decision based on lawful scrutiny rather than delay.
The petitioner, who is undergoing incarceration following conviction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code, filed the writ petition alleging inordinate delay in deciding his request for permission to publish a book he authored while in prison . During his period of incarceration, the petitioner completed a Master’s program in History and was pursuing postgraduate studies in Philosophy and Malayalam. He wrote a book titled Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal and submitted an application for permission to publish it. The Superintendent of the Central Prison forwarded the application and manuscript to the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services along with his recommendation.
Also Read: Supreme Court Proposes High Courts Publish Details Of Judgments Reserved For Over 6 Months
The petitioner contended that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 did not contain any prohibition on prisoners publishing literary works. He relied on Section 36 of the Act, asserting that the rights guaranteed therein included the right to live with dignity, protection against discrimination, and enjoyment of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, subject to limits arising from conviction and confinement. He argued that these rights encompassed freedom of thought and expression. He further alleged discrimination, claiming that other prisoners had been permitted to publish their works. The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhkar Pandurang Sanzgiri.
The State contended that although there was no general objection to the petitioner publishing his book, scrutiny of the manuscript was required given his conviction under the UAPA. It argued that verification was necessary to determine whether the content violated provisions of the UAPA or contained defamatory, derogatory, or sensitive material. It stated that a decision would be taken after detailed scrutiny, requiring at least three months.
The Court recorded that “the fundamental rights of prisoners are not completely taken away upon conviction” . It stated that “by reason of the conviction, a person is not reduced to a non-person and his rights made subject to the whims of the prison administration.” The Court further observed that the enjoyment of fundamental rights is curtailed only to the extent that they become incapable of enjoyment as an incident of conviction and confinement.
Addressing the prisoner’s right to publish a literary work, the Court observed that “thoughts and dreams being internal and intangible, are beyond external control or curtailment.” It stated that these constitute “the ultimate realm of personal freedom, where imagination and reflection thrive without restriction.” The Court explained that once such thoughts crystallise into written words, they become examinable, and that “for prisoners like the petitioner, the examination can be stricter, but never an insurmountable obstacle.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhkar Pandurang Sanzgiri, quoting that “the conditions regulating the restrictions on the personal liberty of a detenu are not privileges conferred on him, but are the conditions subject to which his liberty can be restricted.” It recorded that in that case, the absence of a restriction on writing or publishing a book rendered the Government’s obstruction unlawful.
Turning to the statutory framework, the Court observed that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act and Rules contained no provision “empowering the prison authorities or the Government to interdict a prisoner from publishing his literary work.” It referred to Rule 254, noting that prisoners were permitted to read and copy material as part of reformative measures. Based on this, the Court stated that the petitioner’s request could not be denied absent harmful content, recording that “the petitioner's request to publish his book cannot be denied in the absence of deleterious or harmful content.”
The Court held that the authorities were required to examine the manuscript but that such scrutiny must lead to a timely decision.
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that “the 1st respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's application for permission to publish his book ‘Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal’ within three months of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith”. While taking the decision, due regard shall be had to the findings of the Supreme Court in Prabhkar Pandurang Sanzgiri (supra) and the observations in this judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri. Kaleeswaram Raj, Kum. Thulasi K. Raj, Smt. Aparna Narayan Menon, Smt. Chinnu Maria Antony, Shri. Tarun Philip, Shri. Saran Dev P.B., Advocates
For the Respondents: Smt. Amminikutty, Senior Government Pleader
Case Title: Roopesh T.R v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:82711
Case Number: WP(C) No. 29891 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
