Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the prison authorities to grant a convicted prisoner leave for attending his mandatory law internship. The court held that the convict, currently pursuing a law degree, is entitled to temporary release to fulfill academic requirements. Accordingly, the Superintendent of the Central Prison was instructed to grant ten days of ordinary leave, subject to execution of a bond and sureties.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a life convict undergoing imprisonment at the Central Prison and Correctional Centre, Kannur. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During incarceration, the petitioner enrolled in a three-year LLB course at KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram. He has been attending classes online as part of his academic pursuit.

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Clarity Sought on TDB’s ‘Global Ayyappa Sangamam’ | Bar on Devotees’ Funds, Pamba Riverbank Requires Highest Sanctity

For the fourth semester of the program, a mandatory internship was scheduled from 10 September 2025 to 16 September 2025. The internship required physical attendance at various institutions. This requirement was confirmed by a formal communication issued by the Principal of KMCT Law College, marked as Exhibit P1 in the proceedings.

To comply with the academic requirement, the petitioner submitted an application to the prison authorities seeking leave to attend the internship. However, his application was not acted upon by the Superintendent of the Central Prison, prompting him to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through a writ petition (criminal).

The petitioner sought two principal reliefs: first, the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the prison authorities to release him for ten days to attend the scheduled internship; and second, a general directive for leave whenever his physical presence is mandated by the university for moot courts, workshops, seminars, examinations, or other practical components of the law program.

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of leave was unjustified in light of the petitioner’s bona fide educational engagement. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KHC 55]. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the precedent recognized the right of prisoners to pursue education and mandated leave for examinations and internships.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, citing the judgment in Balamurali N. v. Inspector of Police [2025 KHC Online 1716]. The contention was that the precedent limited the scope of such permissions, suggesting that extended leave for academic purposes could not be granted as a matter of right.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan recorded the rival contentions and examined the precedents cited. The judgment noted: “The Division Bench of this Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu’s case (supra) observed that, a prisoner who intends to pursue his studies should be allowed to pursue his studies through online, and for other internal examinations, the prisoner should be granted leave.”

The court further stated: “I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be given leave in the light of the observation of the Division Bench in Pattakka Suresh Babu’s case (supra).”

Also Read: Supreme Court | Agreement to Sell and GPA Do Not Confer Title in Property | Succession Opens on Father’s Death, Possession Suit Dismissed

On the applicability of the judgment relied on by the Public Prosecutor, the court stated: “I think the dictum laid down in Balamurali’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case.”

The court issued directions to the prison authorities regarding the petitioner’s temporary release. It ordered: “The 1st respondent is directed to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner for a period of 10 days from 09.09.2025 to 18.09.2025 on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jail authorities.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Sunny Mathew, Advocate; Smt. Bhavana K.K, Advocate

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

Case Title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:66361

Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 1170 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan