The Kerala High Court recently declined to grant interim bail to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, who sought one month's release from prison to complete admission formalities for a law course in Mangalore.
While rejecting the plea, Justice CS Sudha clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to approach State authorities for temporary release through the channels provided under the Kerala Prison Rules.
The court emphasized that although prisoners are entitled to educational opportunities, such rights must be exercised within the constraints of prison regulations and available infrastructure.
“As held by the Apex Court, prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those necessarily lost due to confinement. Directions to jail authorities must operate within the framework of Jail Rules,” Justice Sudha observed.
The State strongly opposed the petition, citing a report from the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur. The report highlighted the lack of infrastructure, staff, and secure internet access to monitor online education within the prison, which houses over 1,050 inmates.
Authorities also expressed concern that granting such relief could set a precedent, making it difficult to manage similar requests from other prisoners. Additionally, they feared misuse of internet access for illicit purposes or compromising prison security.
In view of these logistical and security constraints, the Court held that interim bail could not be granted. However, it reiterated that the prisoner may pursue temporary release by applying to the competent State authorities under the provisions of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.
Balamurali N, a 35-year-old former school teacher convicted for sexually assaulting minors, had sought interim bail to join the LLB program at Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College in Mangalore.
While acknowledging the fundamental right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court made it clear that such rights must be balanced against public interest and the practical limitations of prison administration.
The Court referred to Rules 258(13) and 259 of the Kerala Prison Rules, which allow prisoners to pursue education through correspondence or open universities and permit temporary release for educational purposes—but only at the discretion of the State.
“As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, implementing such requests in Kerala prisons would require prior infrastructure development and policy decisions. Courts generally refrain from interfering in policy matters,” the Court noted.
The petitioner’s reliance on Pattakka Suresh Babu v State of Kerala, where two convicts were allowed to pursue LLB online and were granted temporary bail when needed for physical attendance, was also dismissed. Justice Sudha clarified that the facts in that case were materially different.
In Pattakka Suresh Babu, the educational institution had supported the request, and infrastructure for online education was available. In contrast, no such support or facilities were available in the present case.
“A convict is certainly entitled to live with dignity, which includes the right to education. But this right must be harmonized with the realities of incarceration and institutional capacity,” the Court observed.
The petitioner was represented by advocates P Martin Jose, P Prijith, Thomas P Kuruvilla, R Githesh, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Harikrishnan S, Cyriac Tom, Ajay Ben Jose, and Hani P Nair.
Senior Government Pleader Vipin Narayan appeared for the State.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy