Denying Ordinary Leave To Convicts Has Detrimental Effect, Reduces Chances Of Rehabilitation And Re-Socialization: Kerala High Court

The petitioner, a convict undergoing life imprisonment for murdering his father has approached the High Court seeking for grant of ordinary prison leave after undergoing more than 6 years of imprisonment based on adverse police reports.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ordered the Director General Prison and Correction Services to issue orders granting ordinary leave to the petitioner by invoking the Writ Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“Curiously, the report of the probation officer has not been considered by the authority and instead vague police reports have been relied on for denying ordinary leave to the petitioner. The purpose of granting ordinary leave to a prisoner, is to pave the way for their better rehabilitation and re-socialisation as an incentive for good behaviour and correction.”

The petitioner submitted that he was denied ordinary leave by the prison authorities without any lawful reasons. It was stated that his application for ordinary leave was not even placed before the Advisory Board for consideration. He further stated that the police reports are unfavorable to him without any reason whereas the District Probation Officer has recommended granting him ordinary leave.

On the other hand, the Superintended of Prisons submitted that leave can be granted to well-behaved, eligible convicted prisoners as an incentive for good behaviour and responsiveness to correctional treatment as per section 78 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010. It was stated that the petitioner has been abstaining from prison jobs as per his whims and fancies. It was stated that his application for leave was rejected by the Prison Advisory Board as well as the Leave Review Committee. It was also stated that the Prison Advisory Board would consider his leave application again during its next meeting.

A report from the District Police Chief was also cited mentioning that the petitioner might have conflicts with family members if granted leave. The report also indicated that there might be chances of absconding or becoming involved in other criminal cases while on leave.

The Court found that the police report gives obscure reasons and does not mention any specific instances to deny ordinary leave to the petitioner. It stated that police reports often contain vague statements that are not based on specific considerations related to an individual convict. Therefore, the Court said, “Vague reports that are adverse to a convict while seeking ordinary leave, cannot be the basis for denying him his statutory claim for an ordinary leave.”

The Court also took into account the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, which included specific details about the petitioner's educational background, mentioning that he pursued an engineering course through lateral entry after completing a diploma. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner caused the death of his father during an altercation concerning his father's behaviour, which involved alcoholism, domestic violence, and extramarital affairs. It also stated that he has no other criminal background and his family members yearn for his leave.

The Court noted that the petitioner having been imprisoned in 2018 was not granted ordinary leave even once. The Court stated that the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory treatment by denying him ordinary leave based on assumptions and vague police reports.

According to Rule 397, a well-behaved prisoner sentenced to one year or more of imprisonment may qualify for ordinary leave after serving one-third of the total sentence or two years, whichever is lesser. The Court stated that although terms like 'well behaved' or 'good behaviour' are used to determine a convict's eligibility for leave, they have not been defined by the statute. Therefore, the Court stated that the expression 'well behaved' must not be interpreted rigidly or narrowly in the context of convicts.

Emphasizing the importance of granting ordinary leave to a convict, the Court stated thus:

“Connecting with family and society can reduce the chances of recidivism and rekindle a sense of purpose in a convict. Hope and confidence can be byproducts, which may pave the way for the convict's easy infusion into society, thereby creating a chance for the prisoner's reformation, which remains one of the avowed objectives of imprisonment. Denying ordinary leave for long years can have detrimental effect on the above purpose and can even affect the behaviour of an individual. Good behaviour has to be therefore approached objectively and in the instant case, it is glaringly evident that the authorities have approached petitioner's request for ordinary leave with subjectivity.”

The Court invoked its writ jurisdiction to directly grant ordinary leave to the petitioner on finding that he was arbitrarily and purposefully denied leave by the prison authorities.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the petitioner was eligible for granting of ordinary leave.

Counsel for Petitioner: Allen Skariah Thomas (Party In Person)

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Government Pleader P Narayanan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

Case Title: Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v The Chief Secretary

Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 736 OF 2023

Click here to read/download Order