Introduction:

The case of Suresh v. State of Kerala and Others (2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 207) came before the Kerala High Court, where a significant issue concerning prisoners’ rights and the reformative philosophy of criminal justice was examined. The matter was adjudicated by Justice K. Babu in a writ petition filed by the father of a convict seeking grant of ordinary leave for his son under Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules. The prison authorities had denied the request on the ground that the convict was involved in five criminal cases. However, it was brought to the notice of the Court that four of these cases dated back to 2011 and one to 2015, raising questions about the relevance and weight of such past involvement in determining present eligibility for leave. The case thus required the Court to balance administrative discretion with the fundamental objectives of the penal system, particularly the principle of reformation, and to determine whether past criminal antecedents, by themselves, could justify denial of ordinary leave to an otherwise eligible prisoner.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (Father of the Convict):

The petitioner strongly contended that the denial of ordinary leave to his son was arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the governing prison rules. It was argued that the convict was otherwise eligible for leave under Rule 397 and that the authorities had failed to consider the true purpose of granting such leave, which is rooted in the reformative approach of the criminal justice system.

The petitioner emphasized that the past criminal cases relied upon by the authorities were not recent and had occurred nearly a decade earlier. Therefore, it was unreasonable to treat them as a continuing disqualification for the grant of leave. It was submitted that the authorities had failed to consider the conduct of the convict during his incarceration and had instead mechanically relied on outdated records.

It was further argued that ordinary leave is an essential aspect of rehabilitation, enabling prisoners to reconnect with society, maintain family ties, and prepare for reintegration. Denying such leave on the basis of stale allegations defeats the very purpose of correctional policies.

The petitioner also challenged the reliance on adverse police reports, which suggested potential law and order issues if leave were granted. It was contended that such speculative apprehensions, without concrete evidence, cannot override the statutory entitlement of a prisoner who meets the eligibility criteria.

In support of these submissions, reliance was placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that reformation is a central objective of punishment and must guide decisions relating to prisoners’ rights and privileges.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent (State and Prison Authorities):

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, defended the decision of the prison authorities, arguing that the denial of leave was based on legitimate concerns regarding public safety and law and order. It was submitted that the convict’s involvement in multiple criminal cases indicated a pattern of behavior that could not be ignored while considering his request for leave.

The respondents contended that prison authorities are vested with discretionary powers to assess the suitability of a prisoner for leave, taking into account various factors, including past conduct, criminal history, and potential risks. It was argued that the adverse police reports highlighting possible threats to public order were sufficient grounds to deny leave in the present case.

The State further submitted that the grant of leave is not an absolute right but a privilege subject to compliance with statutory conditions and administrative assessment. Therefore, the authorities were justified in exercising caution and prioritizing public safety over the individual interests of the convict.

It was also argued that the involvement in multiple criminal cases, irrespective of their age, reflects on the character and propensity of the individual, and the authorities cannot be faulted for taking such factors into account.

Judgment:

After carefully evaluating the submissions of both parties and examining the relevant legal framework, the Kerala High Court delivered a judgment that strongly reaffirmed the reformative philosophy underlying the criminal justice system. The Court began by emphasizing that ordinary leave granted to prisoners is not merely a concession but a vital component of the rehabilitation process.

The Court observed that the purpose of granting ordinary leave is to enable prisoners to maintain social and familial connections, thereby facilitating their reintegration into society. It noted that such leave serves as a bridge between incarceration and eventual release, helping prisoners transform into responsible citizens.

In this context, the Court held that past involvement in criminal cases cannot, by itself, be treated as a sufficient ground to deny ordinary leave, particularly when such cases are remote in time. The Court found that the cases relied upon by the authorities dated back nearly ten years and had no direct bearing on the present conduct or eligibility of the convict.

The Court further rejected the reliance on adverse police reports that were based on speculative apprehensions of law and order issues. It held that such concerns, unless supported by concrete evidence, cannot override the statutory framework governing the grant of leave.

Importantly, the Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that reformation is a key objective of punishment alongside deterrence and retribution. The Court emphasized that decisions relating to prisoners’ rights must align with this objective and not be influenced by outdated or irrelevant considerations.

The Court also clarified that once a prisoner satisfies the eligibility criteria under Rule 397, the authorities are bound to consider the application in a fair and reasonable manner. Arbitrary denial based on past criminal history, without assessing current behavior and circumstances, was held to be contrary to law.

In its final analysis, the Court concluded that the denial of ordinary leave in the present case was unsustainable and violated the principles of fairness and reformative justice. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the competent authority was directed to consider granting ordinary parole to the convict upon submission of a fresh application, in accordance with law.

The judgment thus reinforces the idea that the criminal justice system must prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration, and that administrative decisions must reflect this underlying philosophy.