Kerala High Court: While Prisoners Have Right To Education, It Must Be Resorted To Remedies Available Under The Prison Rules
The Kerala High Court noted that the accused was found guilty of committing penetrative sexual assault on a few of his own students aged between 8 to 12.
The Kerala High Court disposed of an Application for interim bail by a POCSO accused seeking law college admission, clarifying that while the prisoners have a right to education, it must be resorted to remedies available under the prison Rules 258(13) or 259.
The Court noted that the accused was found guilty of committing penetrative sexual assault on a few of his own students aged between 8 to 12. The accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f) of the IPC and Sections 5 (f), 6, 9 (f) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been convicted accordingly.
A Single Bench of Justice CS Sudha remarked, “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.”
Advocate P Martin Jose appeared for the Applicant, while Senior Government Pleader Vipin Narayan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The accused had applied for an interim bail of one month to seek admission to Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College in Mangalore. He informed the Court that he had cleared the Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) with an all-India rank of 34,397 and intended to secure admission under the management quota.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, submitting a memo with a statement from the Superintendent of Central Prison & Correctional Home, where the accused is housed. The statement detailed that while prisoners were permitted to join educational courses through private, open universities, or distance education as per the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services Management Rules, 2014, a directive from the Kerala Prisons Headquarters explicitly prohibited prisoners from joining regular course programs.
The accused argued that his conviction does not curtail the right to education and requested permission for online study.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court, while relying on the decision in Farzana Batool v. Union of India, 2021, pointed out that “Article 21A of the Constitution of India makes only elementary education a fundamental right and not higher or professional education…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.”
The Bench remarked, “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,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered that “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.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Application.
Cause Title: Balamurali N. v. Inspector Of Police (Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates P.Martin Jose, P.Prijith, Thomas P.Kuruvilla, R.Githesh, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Harikrishnan S., Cyriac Tom, Ajay Ben Jose and Hani P.Nair
Respondent: Senior Government Pleader Vipin Narayan