In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that vague police reports cannot be the sole basis for denying a convict’s statutory claim for ordinary leave. The decision came in the case of Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v. The Chief Secretary & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 736 of 2023], where Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the prison authorities to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner, Allen Skariah Thomas.
Background of the Case
Allen Skariah Thomas, a convict serving a life sentence for the patricide of his father, had been incarcerated since May 2018. Despite having served over six years in prison, Thomas had not been granted ordinary leave. Representing himself in court, Thomas argued that he had maintained good conduct during his imprisonment and that his applications for leave were being unjustly denied based on vague and unfounded police reports.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, which governs the grant of ordinary leave to prisoners. The petitioner contended that the adverse police reports used to deny his leave were not based on specific instances or objective considerations, thus violating his statutory rights.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after a thorough examination of the case, found the police reports to be vague and lacking specific adverse instances. The court noted that the reasons cited in the police reports, such as potential conflicts with family members and the possibility of the convict absconding, were not substantiated with concrete evidence.
The court highlighted the importance of ordinary leave in the rehabilitation and re-socialization of convicts, emphasizing that connecting with family and society can significantly reduce the chances of recidivism. Justice Thomas observed:
“Connecting with family and society can reduce the chances of recidivism and rekindle a sense of purpose in a convict. Hope and confidence can be byproducts, which may pave the way for the convict’s easy infusion into society, thereby creating a chance for the prisoner’s reformation, which remains one of the avowed objectives of imprisonment.”
The court also criticized the subjective approach taken by the prison authorities in evaluating Thomas’s behavior, stating that terms like “good behavior” and “well-behaved” are not clearly defined in the relevant statutes and should be interpreted objectively.
Key Observations
Justice Thomas made several critical observations in his judgment:
– On Police Reports: “Vague reports that are adverse to a convict while seeking ordinary leave cannot be the basis for denying him his statutory claim for an ordinary leave.”
– On Rehabilitation: “Denying ordinary leave for long years can have a detrimental effect on the purpose of imprisonment and can even affect the behavior of an individual.”
– On Subjective Evaluation: “The expression ‘well-behaved’ ought not to be viewed rigidly or narrowly, or from the perspective of a free man.”
Directive to Prison Authorities
Concluding that there had been a purposeful and discriminatory denial of leave, the court directed the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services to issue orders within two weeks granting Thomas ordinary leave as stipulated under Rule 397(b) of the Rules.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril, Convict No. C 2706, Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.
– Respondents: Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Additional Chief Secretary (Home Affairs), Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, D.I.G. Prisons (South Zone), Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, and family members Marykutty Thomas and Prince Philips Thomas.
– Representation: Allen Skariah Thomas argued the case himself, while the respondents were represented by Senior Government Pleader P. Narayanan.
