The Kerala High Court granted 15 days’ parole to a man serving a life sentence so he could marry his fiancée. Although prison rules did not permit leave for a convict’s own wedding, the court intervened, recognizing the deep personal choice and emotional commitment of the woman who chose to stand by him despite his conviction.
Brief Facts of the Case
A woman decided to marry a man serving life imprisonment for murder. Their marriage had been arranged before his conviction, and both families remained committed to the wedding. The convict, through his mother, applied for emergency parole to attend the ceremony scheduled for July 13, 2025. However, prison authorities rejected the request, stating that the Kerala prison rules do not allow emergency parole for a convict’s own marriage. Left with no option, the convict’s mother approached the High Court seeking relief.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 – The governing rules for parole, which currently have no express provision for a convict to be released on parole for their own marriage.
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs to enforce legal and constitutional rights.
Arguments from Both Sides
Petitioner (Convict’s Mother):
- The marriage was planned before conviction and remained intact.
- Proof was submitted, including photos of the wedding ceremony arrangements and the invitation.
- Both families mutually agreed to continue with the wedding despite the conviction.
Respondents (State and Prison Authorities):
- Prison rules do not include marriage as a ground for emergency parole.
- The application was denied strictly based on these rules, with no provision for exceptions.
Court’s Observation
The court shifted the focus from the convict to the woman choosing to marry him, acknowledging her clear and committed decision. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that her resolve and willingness to stand by the convict—even after a life sentence—reflected deep personal conviction that the legal system could not ignore. Exercising special constitutional powers, the judge granted parole not out of sympathy for the convict, but out of respect for the woman’s right to choose her life partner, even in difficult circumstances.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The High Court directed prison authorities to release the convict for 15 days of parole, from July 12 to July 26, 2025, to enable him to attend his own wedding. The decision overrode technical objections in favour of individual dignity and fairness.
Comments from the author of this website
This case highlights how male convicts are often stripped of their humanity by the system. The convict wasn’t asking for special treatment—just to be present for his own marriage, which had been arranged long before his conviction. Yet his request was rejected because the rulebook didn’t explicitly permit it.
Male prisoners are frequently viewed as undeserving of empathy or basic life choices. If a woman had been in the same situation, societal and institutional sympathy would likely have come more naturally. The system’s silence until the woman stood up and spoke out shows how male needs often go unheard unless someone else advocates on their behalf.
This was not about security risk—it was about dignity. The convict’s emotional life and personal relationships mattered, but were ignored until the court stepped in. Such cases reveal a troubling pattern: unless someone else—often a woman—validates a man’s need, he’s treated as invisible.
Final Thoughts
Fairness in law must apply to everyone. A man’s right to love, marry, and maintain human connection shouldn’t end with a conviction. The fact that the court had to use extraordinary powers to grant something so basic shows a clear gap in the system.
Rules need to reflect real lives, not just procedures. Men—whether free or incarcerated—deserve recognition of their emotional lives and the right to make personal choices. This case should prompt serious reform: not just in parole guidelines, but in how the system views male identity and dignity.
Read Complete Judgement Here
Leave A Comment