Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a petition seeking emergency parole for a life convict to provide care to his pregnant wife. The court held that such a request does not fall within the permissible grounds for emergency leave under the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, and does not constitute an extraordinary situation warranting intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed.

The matter concerned a petitioner seeking the release of her husband, a life convict in a murder case, on emergency parole to assist her during pregnancy. The petitioner, aged 42 years, married the convict in 2010. The couple had no children and had been undergoing various treatments to conceive. According to the petitioner, during the convict's previous ordinary leave, they commenced treatment at Nahas Centre for Assisted Reproduction & Endoscopy, Kannur, undergoing an IVF/ICSI procedure, which resulted in a successful pregnancy. The petitioner produced a medical certificate showing that she was two months pregnant and asserted that, given her age and the IVF conception, the pregnancy was high risk. She contended that she required her husband’s presence for proper care and support.

Also Read: Supreme Court Disappointed With Yet Another Allahabad HC Order | Says Ignoring Law On Sentence Suspension Defeats Right To Appeal

The petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison & Correctional Home, Viyyur, seeking emergency parole for her husband. The request was rejected by order dated 11.07.2025, stating that the grounds did not fall under Rule 400(1) of the Rules 2014. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the absence of her husband during this critical period could jeopardise the pregnancy. She maintained that the extraordinary circumstances justified the court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The State opposed the petition, relying on Rule 400(1), which limits emergency parole to specific situations: death or serious illness of close relatives, marriage of close relatives, or partial/complete collapse of the prisoner's house.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Rule 400(1) and Rule 397 of the Rules 2014, and considered the precedent in Sandhya v. Secretary, Secretariat, Tvm. [2023 (5) KHC 174].

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed: "The prison walls are not just physical barriers, but also symbol of the suspension of certain fundamental rights that citizens enjoy." The court recorded that emergency parole is intended only for rare occasions and for reasons specified in Rule 400(1). "Nowadays, convicts are coming before this Court for emergency leave in connection with the 28th day naming ceremony of the child, the first rice feeding ceremony of the child, family functions, and other similar events. If this trend continues, convicts will soon come to this court to participate in local temple festivals, church festivals, family trips, or to visit places like Sabarimala and Guruvayoor."

The court stated that most fundamental rights of convicts are suspended upon conviction, and such suspension should not be diluted by regularly granting emergency leave unless extraordinary situations exist. The judgment noted: "Every convict should know that the victim and their relatives are staring at them when they are in prison, and that staring is necessary and should be an eye-opener for their reformation."

Referring to Rule 400(1), the court recorded that it specifies only three grounds for emergency leave: death or serious illness of specified close relatives; marriage of specified close relatives; and collapse of the convict’s house. The present request did not fall into any of these categories.

The court also referred to the Division Bench judgement in Sandhya, which held that convicts must ordinarily seek relief under the statutory framework for leave and that the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction should be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases where statutory remedies are unavailable or inadequate.

Justice Kunhikrishnan recorded: "A convict is not entitled to emergency leave for giving care to his wife during the pregnancy. If that be the case, there is no difference between a convict and an ordinary citizen." He further stated: "If this Court starts to grant emergency leave to convicts on birthdays, 28th day naming ceremonies, first rice feeding ceremonies, etc., the people will lose faith in the judiciary."

Also Read: Kerala HC Suspends Toll Collection On NH 544 For 4 Weeks | Public Can't Be Forced To Pay When Roads Are Not Maintained And Trust Is Breached

The court stressed the need to balance the basic needs of convicts with the interests of victims and their families: "While granting emergency leave by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court will always keep in mind the interests of the victims and their relatives as well."

The High Court held that the petitioner’s request for emergency leave for her husband to provide pregnancy care did not fall within the grounds under Rule 400(1) of the Rules 2014 and did not amount to an extraordinary situation justifying intervention under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court stating: "Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition (Crl.). Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri. Jerry Mathew, Smt. Devika K.R., Advocates

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

Case Title: Bindhu K.P v. State of Kerala & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:59006

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 978 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan