The Kerala High Court said that though prisoners have a right to education, they must follow proper procedures under Prison Rules 258(13) or 259, while rejecting interim bail to a POCSO accused for college admission.
The Kerala High Court disposed of an interim bail application from a POCSO accused seeking admission to law college.
The Court emphasized that while prisoners have a right to education, they must pursue available remedies under prison Rules 258(13) or 259.
The accused was convicted of penetrative sexual assault against several students aged 8 to 12, under various sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Also Read: [BREAKING] Supreme Court Strikes Down Rules Enabling Caste Discrimination in Prisons
Justice CS Sudha, sitting as a Single Bench, noted that implementing such requests in Kerala’s prisons requires necessary infrastructure and a policy decision from the Government.
The Justice remarked,
“It is well settled that in policy matters, courts generally do not intervene,”
The applicant’s counsel, Advocate P Martin Jose, argued for a one-month interim bail to secure admission to Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College in Mangalore, citing his successful performance in the CLAT-2025 with an all-India rank of 34,397.
The Public Prosecutor opposed this request, submitting a memo from the Superintendent of Central Prison, which stated that while prisoners could enroll in distance education, a directive from the Kerala Prisons Headquarters barred them from regular courses.
Also Read: Who Approves Furloughs in Delhi?: Convicts Challenge Prison Rule in High Court
The accused contended that his conviction should not limit his right to education and requested permission for online studies.
The High Court referenced the ruling in Farzana Batool v. Union of India, 2021, stating,
“Article 21A of the Constitution of India makes only elementary education a fundamental right and not higher or professional education…while the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels.”
The Court also noted Rule 258(13), allowing prisoners to join educational courses through private or distance education, subject to available resources.
Also Read: SC Voices Concern Over Crowded Prison Conditions: Calls for Urgent Reform
Rule 259 mentions that if a prisoner wishes to pursue college studies, the Government may grant temporary release under certain conditions.
The Court concluded,
“This Court as per order dated 31/08/2021 in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021, dismissed his application for suspension of sentence taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences committed by him. But he still does not lose his right under Rules 258(13) or 259. That being the position, the applicant/accused can resort to any of the aforesaid remedies presently in force.”
The High Court therefore dismissed the application.
The applicant in the case was represented by a team of advocates including 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.
On the other side, the respondent was represented by Senior Government Pleader Vipin Narayan.
Case Title: Balamurali N. v. Inspector Of Police (Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
