Ordinary Leave Cannot Be Denied Solely on Old Pending Cases or a Generic Law-and-Order Apprehension When Rule 397 Eligibility Is Met

1. Introduction

Suresh v. State of Kerala (2026 KER 28749) was decided by the Kerala High Court (K. Babu, J.) on 31-03-2026 in a writ petition (criminal) filed by the father of a life convict lodged in the High Security Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur. The convict (Convict No.547/2025) was convicted in S.C.No.604 of 2015 by the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Thrissur and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment including life imprisonment.

The dispute arose when the convict’s application for ordinary leave was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that he was involved in five crimes (four from 2011 and one from 2015). The petitioner contended, among other things, that these were old matters and that the convict was leading a disciplined life in prison.

The key legal issue was whether involvement in old criminal cases (and the broader policing concern of law-and-order) can, by itself, justify refusal of ordinary leave when the prisoner is otherwise eligible under Rule 397 of the applicable Prison Rules.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held that the mere fact that the convict was an accused in five crimes from about a decade earlier is not a valid ground to reject ordinary leave. The Court emphasized that ordinary leave is a facet of the reformative process and facilitates the prisoner’s reintegration with society.

The writ petition was allowed. The competent authority was directed to consider granting ordinary parole if the convict submits an application seeking such relief. (Though the petition and reasoning are framed around “ordinary leave”, the operative direction uses the term “ordinary parole”; the essence of the decision remains that the earlier rejection ground was legally insufficient.)

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2017 KHC 6641)

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reformative framing of parole/furlough in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2017 KHC 6641), where the Apex Court underscored:

  • Maintaining family and social ties is a central justification for temporary release.
  • Reformation is a recognized objective of punishment (alongside deterrence, prevention, and retribution), and short releases can aid redemption and rehabilitation.
  • A “humanistic approach” through parole/furlough helps prepare offenders for successful re-entry and reduces the risk of reoffending by supporting social support networks and reintegration.

In the present case, the High Court used this precedent to reinforce that temporary release mechanisms should not be defeated by broad, non-specific objections where the rules otherwise permit leave.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds on three linked propositions:

  1. Ordinary leave is reformative: The Court characterizes ordinary leave as a “facet of the reformative process” enabling a prisoner to “mingle with society” and transform into a responsible citizen.
  2. Rule-based eligibility is central: The judgment treats eligibility under Rule 397 as the primary legal touchstone. Once eligibility is satisfied, refusal must rest on legally sustainable grounds consistent with the reformative purpose.
  3. Old involvement in crimes is insufficient: The Court expressly finds that being an accused in five crimes “ten years back” is not, by itself, a valid basis to deny ordinary leave.

Additionally, the Court makes an important normative statement: a police contention that release would create a law-and-order issue in the locality is “antithesis to the principles of reformation” and, where the prisoner is eligible under Rule 397, an adverse police report expressing such apprehension is not a ground to refuse ordinary leave.

3.3 Impact

This decision is likely to influence prison-leave adjudication in three practical ways:

  • Higher scrutiny of rejection reasons: Authorities may be required to move beyond generic references to “multiple crimes” or general law-and-order fears, especially when such matters are old, and engage with the rule criteria and the prisoner’s present circumstances.
  • Reformative purpose foregrounded: By explicitly aligning ordinary leave with reformation (and citing Asfaq), the judgment strengthens arguments that temporary release is not a concession but part of correctional policy, subject to rule-based regulation.
  • Limits on police veto: The Court’s statement that a broad apprehension of local disturbance cannot, by itself, defeat leave for an otherwise eligible prisoner can constrain overreliance on adverse police inputs that lack individualized, rule-relevant justification.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Ordinary leave / parole / furlough
These are forms of temporary release from prison. The judgment treats ordinary leave as part of correctional and reformative practice. The cited Supreme Court passage explains that such release helps prisoners maintain family ties and prepare for reintegration.
Reformative theory of punishment
A theory that punishment should aim not only to penalize but also to rehabilitate the offender, reducing future crime by facilitating personal change and social reintegration.
Adverse police report (law-and-order apprehension)
A negative input from police suggesting that release may cause local disturbances. The High Court holds that such apprehension, when used as a generalized objection against an otherwise eligible prisoner, cannot by itself justify refusal of ordinary leave.
Rule 397 (of the Prison Rules)
The provision referenced by the Court as governing eligibility for ordinary leave. The judgment’s thrust is that once Rule 397 eligibility is met, refusal cannot rest on unsupported or generic grounds inconsistent with the reformative purpose.

5. Conclusion

Suresh v. State of Kerala clarifies that ordinary leave—viewed as a reformative tool—cannot be denied merely because the convict was involved in old criminal cases, and that a generalized police apprehension of law-and-order issues should not defeat leave where the prisoner is otherwise eligible under Rule 397. By anchoring its approach in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2017 KHC 6641), the judgment reinforces a correctional, reintegration-oriented lens and narrows the scope for routine, non-individualized refusals of temporary release.