India does not follow 'an eye for an eye': Kerala High Court grants parole to death row convict

The Kerala High Court recently granted escort parole to a convict on death row for visiting his ailing 93-year-old mother..As per details included in the High Court's order, the convict is one of 14 persons who were handed the death penalty by a Sessions Court last year for the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer, Ranjith Sreenivasan. All 14 were reported to have been members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Their appeals against their conviction and sentence are pending before the High Court. .Justice PV Kunhikrishnan passed the order granting parole although the Kerala Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Act and the Kerala Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Rules prohibit parole for prisoners who have been sentenced to death. The Court held that High Courts can invoke powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to uphold basic human rights even when statutory rules bar parole for condemned prisoners.India is not a country which follows retributive punishment like 'an eye for an eye', the Court underscored. "But, a court of law cannot take an inhuman stand like the prisoner who orphaned the kith and kins of the victim. India is not a country where retributive punishment like “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is adopted. Our country known for its humanity, compassion, and empathy while delivering justice. It is the duty of the constitutional court to see that the fundamental needs and basic rights of a prisoner is protected till the sentence is finally executed," the Court stated..It also observed that the Indian justice system is not one built on retributive punishment and therefore, courts must use their discretion to extend the hand of compassion in appropriate cases. "Justice, without the soft hand touch of humanity, compassion, and empathy, is not justice. But humanity, compassion and empathy are matters of judicial discretion which is to be used based on the facts and circumstances of each case," the Court said. .It is the duty of the constitutional court to see that the fundamental needs and basic rights of a prisoner is protected till the sentence is finally executed.Kerala High Court.The petition was filed by the wife of the convict, challenging the repeated rejection of their applications seeking emergency parole by prison authorities.The petitioner had submitted medical records confirming the fragile health condition of the convict's mother and had even offered to bear the costs of escort. However, prison authorities rejected the requests citing Section 42 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 and Rule 339(2) of the Rules, both of which barred emergency parole or escort visits for prisoners awaiting execution.The petitioner submitted that even if the law did not permit parole in such cases, the High Court could exercise its powers under Article 226 on humanitarian grounds and grant parole to her husband to visit his completely bedridden mother..The Court noted that while the offence committed by the convict was grave and that his actions had caused immense suffering to the victim's family, the legal system couldn't adopt a purely punitive approach."When the prisoner, who is a condemned prisoner waiting for death sentence submit before this Court that he want to see his mother, who is in a sinking stage, this Court cannot shut its eye, even though he was inhuman to the deceased and his relatives, when he committed the murder, which is found as true by the trial court," the Court said in its judgment. .India is not a country where retributive punishment like “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is adopted.Kerala High Court .The Court deemed it fit to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and ordered that the convict be taken on escort parole within three days of receiving a certified copy of its judgment.Additionally, the Court directed that the convict be allowed to spend a minimum of six hours with his mother under strict police surveillance, with arrangements supervised by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram City..The petitioner was represented by advocates KS Madhusoodanan, MM Vinod Kumar, PK Rakesh Kumar, KS Mizver, MJ Kirankumar and Shaiq Rasal M.Senior public prosecutor CK Suresh appeared for the State..[Read Order]