Kerala High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the convict’s wife seeking emergency leave for him to attend the choroonu ceremony of their child. The convict was serving a life sentence in the T. P. Chandrasekharan murder case, who was an Indian politician and the founder of the Revolutionary Marxist Party. A Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan,J. held that parole could not be granted to a murder convict for every ceremony and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
The convict was undergoing imprisonment for life in the Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur. He was granted an emergency leave for a period of 10 days in connection with the delivery of a baby boy born on 11-02-2025 at SRKAC Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The traditional choroonu i.e., the first rice feeding ceremony, was scheduled on 23-07-2025 and 26-07-2025 at their residence. According to the wife, the presence of her husband was necessary for the ceremony and hence, she filed this writ petition praying to the Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Superintendent of the Central Prison & Correctional Home for granting emergency leave and also to grant any other relief deemed fit by the Court.
The Court opined that a life convict was entitled to parole only in extraordinary circumstances, and even then, only in accordance with the law in force at the time. It noted that the convict had previously been granted parole for his wife’s delivery and held that such parole could not be extended to cover all subsequent ceremonies following the delivery. The Court concluded that parole could not be granted in this case, particularly because the convict was an accused in a murder case and had already been found guilty by one Court.
Consequently, the Court, while dismissing the writ petition, concluded that the convict was not entitled to parole for the traditional Choroonu ceremony of his child.
[Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5582, decided on 17-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: P.K. Varghese, M.T. Sameer, Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Jerry Mathew, Devika K.R., Sawparnika Raju, Gopika Santhosh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: SR PP, Seetha S.