Three recent court rulings have exposed harsh realities about the state of prisons in Kerala. Despite its much-celebrated prison system, prisoners in the state have to go to court even for basic needs. The court rulings have shed light on how prisoners in the state struggle to protect their rights and fight the human rights violations that persist within it.

There is a widespread belief in society that human rights do not apply to prisoners. However, the Supreme Court and various high courts have repeatedly emphasised in numerous judgments that a person's human rights do not vanish just because they are imprisoned.

Today, prisons are officially referred to as "correctional homes," meant to reform individuals and reintegrate them into society as better people. But in reality, what we see everyday are reports of human rights violations, discrimination and denial of justice.

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader K. Lohiya, who was recently released from Kozhikode district jail, told the media that the conditions inside were the same as they were 30 years ago when he was first imprisoned. Notably, RJD is a constituent party of the Left Democratic Front coalition. This itself is proof that the so-called reformative system is far from adequate.

The court rulings

The first case pertains to the phone calls allowed to prisoners. The prison department has permitted inmates to make phone calls to three approved numbers – typically their family members, lawyers or friends. Each prisoner has to submit details, including the Aadhaar information of the intended recipients, before their numbers are registered and linked to a coded call card. These calls are also recorded by the authorities.

For prisoners, especially undertrials, this facility is crucial for accessing legal assistance.

However, on March 1, a new order came into effect, restricting calls to BSNL numbers only. A prisoner’s father filed a petition challenging this and the high court granted a 10-day stay on the order.

Restricting a prisoner's right to communicate with the outside world is a violation of human rights. It not only isolates them but also creates barriers to accessing legal aid and maintaining personal connections – both crucial for rehabilitation.

The petition in Anas Ahmed v. State of Kerala & Others argues:

1. If the intent is to prevent call forwarding, limiting calls to BSNL numbers is not the right solution.
2. Families facing financial difficulties will struggle with the additional costs.
3. Since BSNL’s network is not available everywhere, it will be harder for inmates to communicate with their lawyers.
4. The inability to forward calls or have parallel conversations ignores the practical needs of those using the service.

Denying this facility to all prisoners under the pretext of preventing criminal conspiracies is unfair to the majority. More importantly, it also infringes upon the rights of their families and legal representatives. This case is likely to see further legal developments in the coming days.

In the second case, Vijith Vijayan, a native of Kalpetta and an accused in the Pantheerankavu Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case, secured the 35th rank in an L.L.B. entrance exam and gained admission to Ernakulam Law College.

However, since he is in judicial custody as an undertrial and was denied bail, he filed a petition requesting online access from prison to continue his studies. The high court dismissed the plea citing that he is a UAPA detainee and a security risk.

This decision raises serious concerns. Education is a fundamental right under the Constitution and even the prison manual recognises the right of inmates to pursue education.

In fact, several convicted prisoners are currently studying for an L.L.B. degree after securing permission from the high court. Yet, Vijith’s plea was denied purely on grounds of security.

This selective restriction highlights the inconsistency in how prisoners' rights are upheld, especially when it comes to those booked under the UAPA.

In Pattaka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, the high court held that education is an integral part of a prisoner's reformation and that an inmate has the same right to education as a free citizen. The judgment emphasised that prison education provides hope, aspiration and a constructive way to utilise time, ultimately helping prisoners lead a better life after their release. 

The division bench made it clear that providing educational facilities to prisoners is essential for achieving the reformative and rehabilitative goals of incarceration. This ruling was based on multiple progressive judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which have consistently upheld fundamental rights. It reflects the high court's commitment to progressive values.

However, despite this precedent, Vijith Vijayan – a B. Tech graduate who completed an MA in History while in prison, cleared UGC NET, and became eligible for a PhD – was denied the right to pursue an LLB simply because he is classified as a high security prisoner under UAPA.

This denial undermines the very progressive values upheld by past rulings. Instead of reinforcing the reformative approach to imprisonment, it sets a dangerous precedent where an undertrial’s access to education is determined by the charges against them rather than their constitutional rights.

The third case involves the Thalassery principal sessions court's order allowing a mosquito net for Deepak Korasa Ramu, an undertrial in a UAPA case.

In the past, mosquito nets have often been denied on security grounds, with prison authorities citing a decades-old incident where an inmate allegedly hid inside a mosquito net and escaped. However, in high-security prisons like Viyyur, which have advanced security infrastructure, surveillance cameras, and strict monitoring, such a justification seems unreasonable and punitive rather than a genuine concern.

What makes this even more arbitrary is that in the Periya murder case, certain accused were granted mosquito nets, while others were denied the same facility. Similarly, in the Bhima Koregaon case, many prisoners were refused mosquito nets under the guise of security concerns.

A case currently before the Kerala high court, Valsa K.P. v. The Superintendent, was filed by a prisoner’s wife, who stated that both her husband and son had to be hospitalised due to mosquito-borne illnesses. The court suggested that the superintendent of the high-security prison reconsider the request.

The reality is that many inmates suffer from mosquito bites and related illnesses, yet authorities often deny them basic protection. To add to this, proper mosquito-control measures inside prisons are rarely implemented.

The suffering of prisoners at Viyyur high security jail is something I personally understand all too well. During my time as an undertrial in Viyyur, sleepless nights due to relentless mosquito bites were a daily reality. At one point, bites from a particular insect even caused wounds on my body, scars of which I still carry. It was only after the then-superintendent granted mosquito nets that I, along with fellow inmates, was able to sleep peacefully.

In this context, the Thalassery court's ruling prioritising the health and dignity of prisoners is a much-needed relief. It stands as a rare judicial acknowledgment of basic human dignity inside prisons.

The need for prison reform

History has repeatedly shown how governments suppress human rights in the name of security. During the pandemic, prisoners were kept in solitary confinement for months under the pretext of preventing the virus from spreading. This was just one instance in a long pattern of denying basic rights without democratic accountability or human rights considerations.

Kerala is seen as a progressive state which promotes human rights, healthcare and education, yet the reality within its prisons tells a different story. The very institutions meant to safeguard human rights, including the judiciary, often turn their back on prisoners. 

Ironically, many leaders in Kerala’s ruling establishment – including chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan – have themselves experienced imprisonment in their early years. Yet, even after holding power for years, they have not made meaningful reforms to the Kerala Prisons Act (2010) or the Kerala Prison Rules (2014). A high-level committee on prison reforms was formed a few months ago but whether it will bring real change remains to be seen.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s powerful words in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) still hold true today:

"The winds of humanity must blow into the prison walls. Our jails must be correctional homes, not iron bastions of cruelty that break the spirit."

Even though India and its prison system have evolved since he said this, the fundamental issues remain unchanged. Reforms are long overdue, and it is up to society as a whole to fight for them.

Allan Shuaib is a law student.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.