Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(PIL) No. 25 of 2026, cited as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73), dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Kerala Government’s executive decision dated January 9, 2026, enhancing the daily wages payable to convicted prisoners engaged in prison labour. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., with the petitioner, Advocate Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi, appearing as a party-in-person. The PIL questioned the steep revision of prison wages from the earlier range of ₹63–₹168 per day to ₹530–₹620 per day, contending that such a multi-fold increase resulted in prisoners earning monthly amounts comparable to or exceeding those earned by free unskilled and semi-skilled workers, despite the State bearing all living expenses of prisoners. The petitioner framed the challenge as one involving constitutional morality, fiscal propriety, statutory competence, and equality, alleging that the wage revision created an impermissible economic inversion where convicted prisoners were allegedly placed in a financially superior position vis-à-vis law-abiding citizens. The State defended the policy as a rehabilitative measure grounded in penological reform, labour dignity, and correctional objectives. The Court, after hearing the submissions, dismissed the PIL, holding that enhancement of prisoner wages as part of a rehabilitation framework does not become unconstitutional merely because other pay scales remain unrevised, and that the issue raised did not warrant judicial interference in policy matters at the instance of a public interest litigant.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the impugned government decision revising prison wages amounted to an arbitrary and disproportionate exercise of executive power, lacking statutory backing and violating established principles governing prison labour. He submitted that the revision represented an unprecedented and sudden escalation, in some categories amounting to nearly a nine-fold increase, without any rational basis or transparent methodology. According to the petitioner, the revised wages translated to monthly earnings of approximately ₹15,000 to ₹18,600 for prisoners, while their basic necessities such as food, accommodation, clothing, healthcare, and security continued to be provided free of cost by the State, thereby creating what he described as a “constitutionally impermissible economic inversion.” He contended that this inversion offended the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution by placing convicted prisoners in a potentially more advantageous economic position than free citizens who must bear their own living costs. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat [(1998) 7 SCC 392], the petitioner emphasized that prison labour is not employment in the conventional legal sense and that wages paid to prisoners are intended to be equitable and incentive-based rather than comparable to statutory minimum wages applicable to free labour. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had cautioned against fixing prison wages at levels that would result in prisoners enjoying a net economic advantage over free workers once State-provided amenities are factored in. The petitioner further highlighted that under existing minimum wage notifications issued by the Kerala Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, unskilled workers earn around ₹15,000 per month, while semi-skilled and skilled workers earn approximately ₹15,720 and ₹18,000 respectively, without subsidised living expenses, and argued that the revised prison wages blurred this carefully maintained distinction. He also drew attention to the honorarium payable to elected representatives of Local Self Government Institutions, asserting that their remuneration was lower than the revised prison wages, thereby underscoring the alleged irrationality of the policy. Additionally, the petitioner contended that prison authorities lacked statutory competence under the Prisons Act, 1894 and the State Prison Rules to fix wages at levels approaching or exceeding market wages payable to free citizens, arguing that such power was neither expressly conferred nor implied. He further alleged procedural arbitrariness, submitting that the government order revising prison wages had not been published in the official Gazette or on the government website, in purported violation of mandatory disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, thereby rendering the decision opaque and legally infirm.

Arguments of the State:

The State of Kerala defended the impugned wage revision as a legitimate policy decision rooted in modern correctional philosophy and rehabilitative justice. It was submitted that prison labour is an integral component of the reformative and rehabilitative framework aimed at equipping prisoners with skills, work discipline, and a sense of dignity, enabling smoother reintegration into society upon release. The State argued that wages paid to prisoners are not a gratuitous benefit but a consideration for work performed, forming part of a structured scheme to incentivize productive labour, reduce idleness, and promote self-worth among inmates. Addressing the petitioner’s equality argument, the State contended that prisoners constitute a distinct class with unique circumstances, and comparisons with free labour or elected representatives are misplaced and legally untenable. It was emphasized that the non-revision of pay scales for other categories of workers does not constitutionally bar the State from revising prison wages, as wage structures across different sectors evolve at different paces based on policy priorities and socio-economic considerations. The State further submitted that enhanced prison wages contribute to restitution, victim compensation, family support, and post-release rehabilitation, thereby serving broader societal interests. On the issue of statutory competence, the State argued that prison administration, including regulation of prison labour and remuneration, falls squarely within the executive domain under existing prison laws and rules, and that the wage revision was an exercise of such administrative discretion. With regard to alleged procedural lapses, the State maintained that the executive decision was validly taken and that any issues relating to publication or disclosure did not vitiate the substantive legality of the policy, particularly in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. The State thus urged the Court to refrain from interfering in a policy decision taken in furtherance of penological reform, especially in a PIL that sought to substitute judicial opinion for executive wisdom.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, after considering the submissions, dismissed the public interest litigation, making it clear that the scope of judicial review in policy matters, particularly those concerning prison administration and rehabilitation, is limited. The Division Bench observed that the mere fact that pay scales of other categories of workers have not been revised does not legally preclude the State from revising prison wages, and that such an argument, if accepted, would unduly constrain executive policy-making. The Court orally observed that the non-revision of wages for others does not mean they will never receive revisions, and that affected groups are free to seek appropriate relief through lawful means, but that such considerations cannot be used to invalidate a policy aimed at prisoner welfare and rehabilitation. Emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of prison labour, the Court observed that prisoners are not being paid for free but are remunerated for work performed as part of a structured scheme designed to facilitate reformation and reintegration into society. The Bench underscored that wage payment to prisoners is a component of rehabilitation, not a reward or privilege, and that productive labour within prisons serves both individual and societal interests. While a detailed judgment was reserved, the Court’s oral observations made it clear that the challenge failed to demonstrate any constitutional or statutory infirmity warranting judicial interference. The Court declined to accept the premise that enhanced prison wages amount to an impermissible economic inversion, implicitly recognizing that rehabilitation-oriented policies must be assessed within their own normative framework rather than through rigid comparisons with free labour markets. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed, with the Court allowing the State’s decision on enhanced prison wages to stand, subject to any future scrutiny that may arise in appropriate proceedings.