The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a life convict’s constitutional right to marry does not automatically entitle them to parole or to turn a high-security central prison into a wedding venue. Dismissing a petition seeking temporary release for an inmate’s upcoming nuptials, Justice Sunitha Gandham ruled that while choosing a spouse is an integral aspect of personal liberty and dignity, exercising that right remains subject to lawful incarceration, prison discipline, and security regulations.
Court Rejects Venue and Escort Requests
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the mother of the prospective bride. The petitioner had requested 30 days of parole for the inmate to attend his wedding, which was scheduled for August 23 at 11:28 am at the Kodandaramaswamy Devastanam in Gudur, following a formal representation submitted on August 12.
As alternative remedies, the petitioner proposed either granting the inmate a six-hour police-escorted visit to the Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in Simhachalam or permitting the marriage ceremony to take place inside the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
The High Court rejected all proposed options, observing that a high-security prison cannot be equated to an open-air camp or used as a venue for a private marriage. Justice Gandham emphasized that accommodating such an event would require complex security arrangements for visitors, relatives, and priests, which is unfeasible for a high-security facility housing inmates with disciplinary violations.
Inmate History and Security Concerns
State counsel strongly opposed the petition, presenting the convict’s record during his life sentence for murder. Although the prisoner has served nearly 11 years following the dismissal of his conviction appeals by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, state authorities highlighted severe security concerns.
According to state submissions, the convict previously escaped from the outer premises of the Old Central Prison at Mulapet, Nellore, in 2014, remaining on the run for 1,736 days before surrendering. Furthermore, prison authorities recorded nine separate internal disciplinary punishments against him, creating a reasonable apprehension that he might abscond or reoffend if released.
Legal Framework and Future Eligibility
Addressing the legal parameters of prisoner rights, the High Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including D Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration, confirming that prisoners retain fundamental rights, though their exercise is restricted by lawful custody.
The court observed that Rule 1(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules, 2024 provides for parole for the marriage of a prisoner’s family member or near relative, but does not explicitly recognize a prisoner’s own wedding as an independent ground. Reaffirming that parole is a privilege subject to strict conditions rather than a vested right, the court noted that primary discretion lies with designated administrative authorities.
The court also identified a statutory bar to the inmate’s immediate release following a prison punishment imposed on August 26, 2025, which restricted his telephone and interview facilities for three months. Under state parole rules, a prisoner subjected to disciplinary punishment must complete a mandatory two-year period after the expiry of the punishment before becoming eligible to apply for parole again.
While denying immediate relief or escorted leave, the High Court clarified that the convict may renew his request for parole after completing the required two-year waiting period, provided his jail conduct remains satisfactory and circumstances warrant consideration.
