Geographical Restrictions On Prisoners Visiting Family Under Police Escort Doesn't Violate Fundamental Rights: Kerala HC

The petitioner, a prisoner, had challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 415(3) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules of 2014. This rule allows prisoners who are ineligible for other leaves to have one escort visit every six months to meet their family, but limits such visits to within Kerala, except in the case of a near relative's death. The visits last for 24 hours excluding the travel time and if overnight stay is required, prisoners must stay in a jail or nearby police station, where there is no jail.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that escort visits fall within the State's policy domain and would depend on the State's capacity to provide accompanying police officers, transportation, distance and financial resources.

“Such geographical restrictions and regulations being based on sound policy of the State, this Court does not find it offensive to any of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 or 19 of the Constitution of India. The object of an escort visit is to provide an opportunity for the prisoner to interact with his family members, in situations when he is not eligible for any kind of leave. However, the said opportunity must be within the limits of the State's capacity. By creating a geographical restriction for an escort visit, the State cannot be said to have infringed any of the constitutional mandates.”

The court also said that the geographical limit for an escort visit has been prescribed in the Rules for various reasons. Practical considerations like distance, security of the persons accompanying the prisoner, financial implications, and other factors have a bearing. It said that unless the restriction imposed is shown to be inherently unreasonable or totally discriminatory, this Court would be loath to interfere. The court said that Rule 415(3) of the 2014 Rules permits an escort visit outside the State in the event of the death of an immediate relative; hence there is no absolute restriction as such.

The petitioner, who was arrested in 2021 is lodged at High Security Prison in Viyyur, is facing charges under the UAPA and is awaiting trial before the Special Court for NIA cases. He has approached the Court challenging the denial of permission for an escort visit to meet his mother and close relatives at Chikkamangaluru in Karnataka.

The petitioner argued that Rule 415 (3) is discriminatory since it violates escort visits outside Kerala on the basis of place of birth and is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution. It was argued that denial of an escort visit is inhuman and disconnects him from society. It was argued that the denial of an escort visit to meet his old mother in Karnataka since he hails from outside Kerala violates his fundamental and statutory rights.

The Respondents submitted that rules regarding escort visits have been made for the safety of officers as a measure of security and considering other practical implications. It was argued that rules contemplate escort visits only for 24 hours and there is no bar on petitioner on the basis of place of birth. It was also submitted that geographical regulation and permitting escort visits within Kerala was not violative of Article 14.

The Amicus Curiae submitted before the Court that the right of prisoners to meet family cannot be denied. It was pointed out that the Delhi Prison Rules, of 2018 do restrict escort visits of prisoners to outside the State.

The Court noted that an escort visit as per section 2(xvi) means a visit under escort to any place of a prisoner who is not eligible for emergency leave for not exceeding twenty-four hours excluding the time of journey. Further, the Court noted that Section 79 permits escort visits of 24 hours excluding journey time to prisoners who are not eligible for any other kind of leave. It also stated that as per Section 79, if prisoners have to travel at night during their escort visits can halt at a place where there is a jail.

The Court stated that when a prisoner has to be escorted beyond the State, considerations such as the safety of accompanying officers, the practicality of deploying sufficient officers for travelling, and the financial burden on the State must also be taken into account. The Court thus stated that these are matters within the State's policy domain and it would not interfere unless restrictions imposed on escort visits are shown to be 'inherently unreasonable or totally discriminatory'.

Court stated, “When a prisoner has to be escorted beyond the territory of Kerala, the safety of the officers accompanying the prisoners, and the practicality of the number of personnel to be deployed to accompany such prisoners, apart from the financial burden on the State are all matters which will have to be necessarily borne in mind while taking such a decision. The limited resources of the State in the matter of accompanying personnel, transportation, distance and finances are all challenges that the police will have to address if unrestricted escort visits are granted. These practical considerations have a significant role in the policy formulated by the State regarding the restrictive grant of an escort visit. Such considerations have found a way into the statute book and in the absence of any apparent arbitrariness or malafides, no cause arises for any interference.”

The Court further noted that granting escort visits every six months to prisoners with relatives outside Kerala, particularly in remote areas of the northernmost states, would lead to 'chaos in prison management.'Court added, “Therefore, Rules, which are based on formulations of policy, that restrict such rights, ought not to be interfered with by the Court unless it is so explicitly discriminatory.”

As such, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Advocate Dhanya P Ashokan (Amicus Curiae), Public Prosecutor Sreeja V

Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 549 OF 2023

Case Title: B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

Click here to Read/Download Judgment