In a significant ruling that upholds constitutional equality within prison walls, the Kerala High Court has clarified that a prisoner's brother's son must be treated the same as a sister's son for granting emergency leave. The court slammed the discriminatory interpretation by jail authorities and allowed a life-term convict to attend his nephew's wedding.
Court Rejects Jail's Discriminatory Interpretation
Justice Kauser Edappagath was hearing a plea filed by the nephew of a convict serving a life term at the Central Prison and Correctional Home in Kannur. The petitioner had sought a direction for the prison authorities to grant his uncle emergency leave for ten days, from December 20 to 29, to attend his marriage.
The prison superintendent had rejected the application, citing Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. The jail authority interpreted the Malayalam term 'ദർ അനരവൻ' (direct nephew) mentioned in the rule to mean only the sister's son of the convict, not the brother's son.
A Violation of Constitutional Rights
The court firmly rejected this interpretation. Justice Edappagath stated that the term cannot be construed to mean only the sister's son or daughter. "There cannot be any discrimination between the sister's children and the brother's children," the court held.
It emphasized that excluding the convict's brother's son or daughter from the purview of Rule 400(1)(ii) would amount to a clear violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Constitution of India. The court noted with concern that this wrong interpretation was being applied by almost all Jail Superintendents in the state, as evidenced by numerous similar petitions.
Background of the Case and the Rule
The case originated when the petitioner applied to the Kannur prison superintendent for his uncle's emergency leave to attend his wedding. Rule 400 allows well-behaved convicted prisoners (except those convicted for national security offences) emergency leave under exceptional circumstances.
Sub-clause (ii) of this rule permits leave for events like the marriage of specific relatives, including "son, daughter, brother and sister, grandson, granddaughter, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, direct nephew, direct niece." The state counsel argued that the petitioner, being the brother's son, did not fall within the ambit of 'direct nephew' as per the jail's interpretation.
The court's order pointed out the flaw in this logic, granted the convict emergency leave, and set a precedent for equal treatment. This decision aligns with recent national efforts, like the Centre amending the prison manual, to address systemic inequalities within the correctional system.
