It is certainly a matter of great solace to note that while most decisively upholding the right of prisoners to have right to education, the Kerala High Court in a most pertinent, progressive, pragmatic and persuasive judgment titled Balamurali N vs Inspector of Police in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2020 that was pronounced as recently as on April 11, 2025 disposed of an application that had been filed for interim bail by a POCSO accused seeking law college admission clarifying most clearly that while the prisoners have a right to education, it must be resorted to remedies available under the Prison Rules 258(13) or 259. In the fitness of things, the Kerala High Court dismissed his application for suspension of sentence taking into account the nature and gravity of offences committed by him. But it was made indubitably clear by the Bench that he still does not lose his right under Rules 258(13) or 259. It was also made absolutely clear by the Kerala High Court while disposing of the application that the applicant/accused can resort to any of the aforesaid remedies that are presently in force.
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice CS Sudha sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This is an application moved under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 by the appellant/accused seeking interim bail for a period of one month to enable him to seek admission in a Law College at Mangalore.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “In the application it is alleged thus: – The applicant attended the Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Karnataka. He cleared the test and secured all India rank of 34,397. The applicant intends to seek admission in Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College, Mangalore under the management quota. On enquiry with the college authorities, the applicant has been informed that the admission process for the academic year 2024-2025 would start from 01/04/2025. The admission is based on merit from the scores of the qualifying exam or course-level entrance exam which is the score of the CLAT exam. The applicant has been informed that for admission under the management quota, the marks of the applicant for his degree would also be considered. The applicant has to obtain various certificates from the college and University from where he did his degree course and to do the necessary documentation for his admission. This Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, 2024 (1) KHC 55 has permitted two life convicts to pursue LLB considering their right to education. The said judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the appeal filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). That being the position, the applicant may be granted interim bail for a period of one month starting from 27/03/2025 for seeking admission for LLB in the aforesaid college.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 disclosing that, “The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who has filed a memo along with the statement of the Superintendent of Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur. In the statement it is contended that as per Rule 258(13) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services Management Rules, 2014 (the Rules), prisoners are permitted to join educational courses through private, open universities or distance education, subject to the availability of resources and infrastructure within the prison. However, as per letter No. G2-23235/2023/PrHQ dated 13/10/2023, the Kerala Prisons Headquarters has issued a directive explicitly prohibiting prisoners from joining regular course programs. The said order is binding on all the prison facilities in Kerala and has set a clear restriction on the approval of regular courses for inmates.”
While referring to the leading judgment titled Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, 2024 (1) KHC 55, the Bench pointed out clearly, cogently and convincingly in para 6.1 that, “The Bench held that a convict is entitled to basic human rights and has the right to live with dignity in jail. The prisoners’ right to education is a human right grounded in the right to dignity. A prisoner has as much a right to pursue study as a person free from the confines of jail. The aims of imprisonment include reformation and rehabilitation apart from deterrence. Holding so, the convicts were permitted to attend the course through online mode. The jail superintendents of both the jails concerned and the principals of the colleges in which the convicts had succeeded in getting admission were directed to make necessary arrangements to enable the convicts to attend the classes online. It was also directed that when the physical presence of the convicts is insisted by the college/university for attending moot court, seminar, workshop, internship programme, examination or any other practical training, the jail superintendent was directed to release them on interim bail for the required period on executing a bond with two solvent sureties. The convicts were given the liberty to file applications to the said effect before the jail superintendent with supporting document from the college/university.
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 of this laudable judgment that, “Article 21A of the Constitution of India makes only elementary education a fundamental right and not higher or professional education. The Apex Court in Farzana Batool v. Union of India, 2021 KHC 7069: 2021 SCC Online SC 3433 held that while the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels.”
It is also worth noting that while citing the relevant case law, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “It is true that merely because a person has been convicted, he does not become a non-person. A convict is certainly entitled to live with dignity, which includes his right to education also. But as held by the Apex court in Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi: 1978 KHC 611: 1978 (4) SCC 104, prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement.”
Most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench makes no bones to point out most categorically in para 13 of this brilliant judgment propounding that, “As held by the Apex court, prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Hence, they will not be able to enjoy all rights like a free citizen. When directions are given to the jail authorities it will have to be within the framework of the Jail Rules. Courts must be reluctant to intervene in the day-to-day operation of the State penal system as prisons cannot be run by courts as each instrumentality must function within its province. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, to implement the requests of such nature in the prisons in Kerala, necessary infrastructure will first have to be put in place. This is an area where a policy decision will have to be taken by the Government. It is well settled that in policy matters, courts generally do not intervene.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 14 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Having thus reminded myself of the contours of jurisdiction of this court, let me consider whether there are provisions in the Rules presently in force to deal with the request of the applicant. I refer to Rule 258(13) of the Rules which says that prisoners are permitted to join educational courses through private, open universities or distance education subject to the availability of resources and infrastructure within the prison. I also refer to Rule 259 which says that if a prisoner expresses a desire to continue his studies in college for the purpose of completing a degree course, the Government may, under subsection (6) of Section 432 Cr.P.C, grant him a temporary release by suspending the execution of his sentence for such period as may be necessary for that purpose. Any rules made by the government in this regard shall also apply to such release. The aforesaid Rules still remain in the Statute book and as long as the said Rules have not been held to be unconstitutional or against the provisions of any law or Rules in force, there is no reason why the said Rules cannot be invoked by the convicts.”
Finally and far most significantly, we see that the Bench then deems it fit to draw the curtains of this balanced judgment and so also concludes by holding and directing most precisely in para 15 stating that, “Coming to the case on hand, the applicant herein, a teacher, is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on few of his own students aged between 8 to 12. He was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f) IPC and Section 5 (f) read with Section 6 and Section 9 (f) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been convicted accordingly. This Court as per order dated 31/08/2021 in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021, dismissed his application for suspension of sentence taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences committed by him. But he still does not lose his right under Rules 258(13) or 259. That being the position, the applicant/accused can resort to any of the aforesaid remedies presently in force. The application is disposed of accordingly. Post on 02/12/2025.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
