Kerala High Court denies interim bail to POCSO convict seeking LLB admission

The Kerala High Court recently refused to grant interim bail to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) who sought his release from prison for one month to complete formalities to join a law course at a Mangalore college [Balamurali N v Inspector of Police]..However, the Court added that it is open for the prisoner to approach the State authorities to seek such temporary release for his education, through permitted channels under the Kerala Prison Rules.Justice CS Sudha explained that while prisoners too should be given educational opportunities, the exercise of such rights must fall within the framework of prison regulations and existing infrastructure."As held by the Apex court, prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Hence, they will not be able to enjoy all rights like a free citizen. When directions are given to the jail authorities it will have to be within the framework of the Jail Rules," she observed. .In this case, the Court took note of the State's submission that there were not enough staff or infrastructure to monitor the online education of the prisoner. The State voiced concern that if the prisoner is given long periods of access to the internet for his studies, it may be difficult to for the authorities to ensure that this facility is not misused for illicit activities or to compromise security. In view of such submissions, the Court declined to grant interim bail as requested by the prisoner, but added that he may approach the State authorities in the matter. .The Court was dealing with a plea by Balamurali N, a 35-year-old former school teacher who was convicted for sexually assaulting minor students.He had sought one month's interim bail to complete admission formalities at the Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College in Mangalore to enroll in an LLB course. The State opposed the plea by submitting a report from the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, which highlighted several logistical and security concerns.The report pointed out that the prison, housing over 1,050 inmates, lacked dedicated infrastructure for secure online education, including proper internet access and monitoring mechanisms.The prison authorities also raised concerns that if Balamurali's plea were allowed by the Court, it may prompt other prison inmates to make similar requests, which would be difficult to accommodate at the prison. .The Court observed that while the right to education is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot override prison regulations or public interest.Citing Rules 258(13) and 259 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (Kerala Prison Rules), the Court noted that prisoners may pursue studies through correspondence or open universities and may be released temporarily for educational purposes.However, such release is decided by the State government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or through a judicial direction in every case."As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, to implement the requests of such nature in the prisons in Kerala, necessary infrastructure will first have to be put in place. This is an area where a policy decision will have to be taken by the Government. It is well settled that in policy matters, courts generally do not intervene," the Court added..The Court then considered whether the prisoner could instead pursue his law course through online classes while remaining in prison. The Court decided not to directly interfere on this aspect as well given the infrastructural and security constraints cited by the prison authorities. "A convict is certainly entitled to live with dignity, which includes his right to education also. But as held by the Apex court in Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi ... prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement," the Court added..It also rejected the prisoner's reliance on another case where the Kerala High Court had permitted two prisoners to pursue LLB courses online, while adding that they could be released on temporary bail when their physical presence was required by the college. Justice Sudha opined that the facts in that case, namely Pattakka Suresh Babu v State of Kerala, were materially different. In the Pattakka Suresh Babu case, the prisoner's request was also supported by the educational institution. In the present case, however, the Court noted that there was neither such institutional cooperation nor the necessary infrastructure within the prison to support online legal education..The applicant-prisoner was represented by advocates P Martin Jose, P Prijith, Thomas P Kuruvilla, R Githesh, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Harikrishnan S, Cyriac Tom, Ajay Ben Jose, and Hani P Nair.Senior government pleader Vipin Narayan appeared for the State..[Read Order]