An Eye For An Eye Not Our Justice: Kerala High Court Grants Escort Parole To Death Row Convict In Advocate Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder Case

A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court by the wife of the convict, who challenged the prison authorities’ continued denial of parole. In her petition, she submitted medical documentation confirming the fragile health condition of the convict’s 93-year-old mother, who is bedridden and in a critical state. The petitioner also offered to bear the expenses of police escort during the visit.

Despite this, the prison authorities cited statutory bars and declined to grant parole, prompting the family to seek judicial relief under Article 226.

The convict is among 14 individuals sentenced to death by a Sessions Court for the murder of Ranjith Sreenivasan, a lawyer and leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). All the accused were allegedly affiliated with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political offshoot, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Their appeals against the conviction and capital sentence are currently pending before the High Court.

Ordinarily, the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, along with Rule 339(2) of its corresponding Rules, prohibits parole or emergency leave for prisoners who have been sentenced to death. Citing these provisions, prison authorities had repeatedly denied the convict’s requests for parole.

A Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ruled that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution allows High Courts to intervene in exceptional cases to protect basic human rights, even when statutory frameworks impose restrictions.

Advocate KS Madhusoodanan appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Public Prosecutor CK Suresh appeared for the Respondents.

The Court emphasized that India’s criminal justice system does not subscribe to a retributive model of punishment—one rooted in retaliation like “an eye for an eye.” Instead, the Court said, "But, a court of law cannot take an inhuman stand like the prisoner who orphaned the kith and kins of the victim. India is not a country where retributive punishment like “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is adopted. Our country known for its humanity, compassion, and empathy while delivering justice. It is the duty of the constitutional court to see that the fundamental needs and basic rights of a prisoner is protected till the sentence is finally executed."

"When the prisoner, who is a condemned prisoner waiting for death sentence submit before this Court that he want to see his mother, who is in a sinking stage, this Court cannot shut its eye, even though he was inhuman to the deceased and his relatives, when he committed the murder, which is found as true by the trial court," the Court added.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime and the pain inflicted upon the victim’s family, but reiterated that courts must balance justice with humanitarian considerations, especially when dealing with a prisoner awaiting execution.

Granting relief, the Court directed that the convict be taken to his mother’s residence on escort parole within three days of receiving the certified copy of the judgment. The visit is to be conducted under strict police surveillance, and the convict must be allowed to spend at least six hours with his mother.

The Court further ordered that the arrangements be made under the supervision of the District Police Chief of Thiruvananthapuram City.

Cause Title: Jasmin Shaji v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2025:KER:45587]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates KS Madhusoodanan, MM Vinod Kumar, PK Rakesh Kumar, KS Mizver, MJ Kirankumar, and Shaiq Rasal M.

Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor CK Suresh.