Vijith Vijayan vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 5 March, 2026

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vijith Vijayan vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 5 March, 2026

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39857 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant-petitioner is an under-trial prisoner who has been in judicial custody in Viyyur High Security Prison in S.C.No.1/2020/NIA/KOC, on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the appellant are punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 13, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant is arrayed as the 4th accused in the said sessions case.

2.1. The appellant pleads that he is a B.Tech Graduate, who is desirous to continue his learning process, and appeared for the Kerala Entrance Examination for 3 Year LLB course conducted by the Kerala Law Entrance Commissioner for the academic year 2024-25 as per the permission granted by the Special Court. In W.A.No.780 of 2025 4 2026:KER:19443 the Entrance examination, he secured 35th rank and got allotment in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. Thereafter, he approached the trial court for permission to complete admission formalities and by virtue of Ext.P1 order dated 23.09.2024 of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, he was permitted to complete admission formalities, and he took admission in the said college.

2.2. The classes for 3 year LLB Course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam, were started on 01.11.2024. The appellant is not in a position to attend the classes physically, as he is under judicial custody in connection with the sessions case mentioned above. On behalf of the appellant, his brother sent Exts.P3 and P4 representations dated 07.11.2024 to the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent, Mahatma Gandhi University, and the 2nd respondent, Principal of Government Law College, Ernakulam, through email, requesting to permit the appellant to attend the classes through online mode. But no reply has been received from respondents 1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the W.A.No.780 of 2025 5 2026:KER:19443 following reliefs;

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to make necessary arrangements for enabling the petitioner to undergo his LLB course of study in the 2nd respondent College through online mode; and In case, the presence of the petitioner is insisted by the 2nd respondent for attending exams, seminar or moot court appropriate direction may be issued to the 3rd respondent to provide escort visit to the petitioner for the said purposes."

3. In the writ petition, the 3rd respondent, Superintendent, High Security Prison, Viyyur, filed a counter affidavit dated 09.01.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(f) documents. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that the appellant, who is an under-trial prisoner under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, has no legal right to pursue a course of study conducted outside the prison premises through regular attendance or via online mode. Similarly, there is no legal duty cast upon the respondents to provide such facilities to an undertrial prisoner like the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant did not make any specific request to the respondents for W.A.No.780 of 2025 6 2026:KER:19443 such facilities, nor have the respondents denied any such request. Therefore, the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus is unwarranted. It is also contended by the 3rd respondent that before approaching this Court, the appellant had not approached the Special Court, and for that reason, the writ petition is not maintainable since the primary authority to consider the question of granting permission to the appellant for attending the course, either through regular attendance or online mode, lies with the said court. In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent raised security concerns if the permission sought by the appellant is granted to attend the classes through online mode. Paragraphs 14 to 22 of that counter affidavit read thus;

"14. The alternative of attending classes through an online mode also presents significant challenges. The petitioner is an engineering graduate with expertise in electronics, computer devices and information technology. His technical knowledge outsmarts that of the prison guards and officials, who are not as technologically qualified. This poses a risk of misuse of any gadgets provided to the petitioner for the purpose of attending online classes, as it would be difficult to ensure complete monitoring of his actions while using such devices.

W.A.No.780 of 2025 7

2026:KER:19443

15. Therefore, there is a high security risk if mobile or computer gadgets are provided to the petitioner in prison. Even if it is assumed that prison authorities can prevent misuse of gadgets by the petitioner, despite the fact that the authorities are technically less qualified and experienced than the petitioner, it would require additional staff deployment to properly monitor his actions and ensure security.

16. It is also submitted that video conferencing facilities are available in the High Security Prison Complex. However, these facilities are primarily used for conducting trials, remand extensions, and related judicial processes, Even though there are five video conferencing systems functioning, the prison authorities face constraints in exclusively allocating such systems due to their busy schedules and resource limitations. Occasionally, they are even missing appearances in courts due to busy scheduling of cases in different courts at the same time. Therefore, the existing video conferencing infrastructure cannot be set apart solely for the petitioner's use.

17. It is respectfully submitted that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, provide for extending educational opportunities and facilities to prison inmates. However, the Rules do not permit inmates to enroll in regular colleges or educational institutions for continuing their formal education. Instead, the Rules stipulate that facilities for education through private open universities or distance education programs will be made W.A.No.780 of 2025 8 2026:KER:19443 available to prisoners.

18. Numerous inmates in the High Security Prison are currently pursuing studies through institutions like IGNOU and Calicut University, which offer distance education programs. Additionally, the prison authorities are conducting vocational and skill development courses to further enhance the educational and rehabilitative prospects for the inmates.

19. It is respectfully submitted that an undertrial prisoner who has been denied bail is not entitled to pursue a course of study of his choice at an institution of his preference, as doing so would effectively amount to granting bail, bypassing the judicial process. A prisoner is required to comply with the legal restrictions imposed by the authorities, and their options remain limited within the framework of such restrictions, which are imposed in the larger public interest. These restrictions are essential to maintain security, order, and the integrity of the justice system. Those restrictions are also in the tune with international rules on the treatment of prisoners.

20. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 17.12.2015. These rules outline standards that are widely recognized as good practices in the treatment of prisoners and the management of penal institutions. Rule 89(1) states that "the fulfilment of these principles requires the individualization of treatment and for this purpose a flexible W.A.No.780 of 2025 9 2026:KER:19443 system of classifying prisoners in groups." It emphasizes the desirability of distributing such groups into separate prisons suited to their treatment needs. Similarly, Rule 89(2) highlights that prisons do not need to provide the same degree of security for every group and that varying levels of security should be provided based on the needs of different groups.

21. The Model Prison Manual, 2016, though not legally binding, categorizes high-security prisoners into three groups based on their criminal behavior, security risk, potential for reformation, and educational and vocational needs. Category 1 encompasses individuals such as undertrials, convicts, and detainees involved in terrorism, extremist activities, violent crimes, and habitual offenders, as well as those with a history of escape from custody. The petitioner falls within Category 1.

22. These modern trends in prison management do not preclude the imposition of heightened restrictions on high- security prisoners, When there exists a perceivable security threat arising from granting a degree of liberty or personal rights to a prisoner, such rights must yield to the paramount public interest of preventing such threats. A prisoner, therefore, is entitled only to the residual elements of constitutional rights, which are consistent with the necessary restrictions imposed. These rights cannot be equated with the full range of fundamental rights enjoyed by a free individual."

4. On behalf of the 1st respondent, MG University, a W.A.No.780 of 2025 10 2026:KER:19443 statement dated 07.01.2025 was filed in the writ petition. It is stated in the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that, as per Clauses 2, 12, 21, of the 3 year Unitary LLB 2018 regulations, mode of study, attendance for exam registration and internal assessment attendance component, etc., are related only to the Regular/Offline mode of study. During the period of Covid- 19 pandemic, taking into account the special situation, online mode classes were generally allowed, and attendance was relaxed. Providing the said facility to only one student is not practical and will be contrary to existing regulations in this regard.

5. On behalf of the 4th respondent, a statement dated 27.01.2025 was filed in the writ petition, raising similar contentions as those of other respondents, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. In addition to the contentions raised regarding the seriousness of the offence allegedly committed by the appellant and other concerns regarding security aspects, if such a permission is granted to the appellant, the denial of such permission to a similarly placed person is also pointed out in the said statement. Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the statement read thus;

"19. The Petitioner obtained admission in the Government W.A.No.780 of 2025 11 2026:KER:19443 Law College, Ernakulam on 18.10.2024. After obtaining admission, he never approached the Hon'ble Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam for seeking permission to attend classes either in offline/online mode even though he had obtained permission to appear for entrance examination and permission to complete admission formalities vide CMPs 106/2024 and 398/2024 respectively from the Hon'ble Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The Petitioner has now directly approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide this Writ Petition completely bypassing the Hon'ble Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, which is improper and unjust.

20. It is brought to the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court that in a similar case, another accused who is an accused in SC 02/2023 (RC 2/2022/NIA/KOC- Kerala PFI case) and undergoing judicial custody, had filed CMP No. 467/2024 before the Hon'ble Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, seeking directions to the Superintendent of Prison to provide arrangements for attending online class of LLB course. The Hon'ble Special Court for NIA Cases had sought report from the Superintendent of High Security Prison, Viyyur, who filed a detailed report stating that according to Kerala Prisons Rules, the Superintendent may allow a prisoner to enrol for a recognized course from a private or Open University or through Distant Education Scheme. It was also mentioned that in the said rules, there is no provision for granting permission to attend regular or full-time college courses, whether in prison or online. He had W.A.No.780 of 2025 12 2026:KER:19443 also reported that providing facilities for attending online classes is not practical due to lack of infrastructure, staff and security concerns, including risks of hacking and illegal communication that may threaten the National security. It requires heavy police escort for any transportation related to the course. Granting permission to attend online courses may also lead to similar demands from other high security prisoners, which cannot be catered. After hearing the parties, on 22.11.2024, the Hon'ble Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam dismissed the petition by observing that, in Pattakka Suresh V/s State of Kerala (2023 KHC Online 734: 2024 (1) KLT 55), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had dealt with petitions filed by two life convicts seeking suspension of the sentence on the grounds that they want to attend LLB course. On fact of that case, the Hon'ble Court permitted the petitioners to attend the course online instead of suspending the sentence. The observations of the Hon'ble Court in the judgement cannot be considered as a declaration of law on the points. It is a decision on the basis of the facts of that case. In the present case the facts are entirely different. The petitioner is similarly placed as that of the other accused and is charged for offences under the UA(P)A. It is humbly submitted that, the facts and circumstances of each such requests need to be considered differently, on the basis of the requirement, need, feasibility etc. and the request of an accused charged for terrorism does not fall in the same league.

21. The Petitioner is already having a professional degree W.A.No.780 of 2025 13 2026:KER:19443 (B-Tech in Mechanical Engineering) obtained through a regular course from the Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Thenhipalam, Malappuram. Since he is a CPI(Maoist) cadre, strong and heavy police escort along with vehicles is provided by the State Government when he is taken out of the jail. The police escort for petitioner for attending examinations, seminars, moot courts etc and making available VC facilities both at jail and at Government Law College, Ernakulam and making available VC operators cause huge financial burden to the State government. The same is required to be met from the Petitioner if he is given permission to attend 3 year LLB course in online mode. The decision of the State government is also crucial in this regard. It is felt that the petitioner, who is a member of a banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist), and also having an Engineering background, has strategically selected a regular course of LLB, only to evade the judicial process."

6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2025, dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 10 to 12 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"10.The Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Prisons Act') provides for the safe custody, correction, W.A.No.780 of 2025 14 2026:KER:19443 reformation, welfare and rehabilitation of prisoners. Section 12 of the Prisons Act states that the functions of prison shall include to provide educational and other facilities for improving qualities, character and mental attitude of prisoners.

11. Section 36 Chapter IX of the Prisons Act lays down the rights of prisoners. According to Section 36, subject to the provisions of any law, all prisoners shall have the right to live with human dignity. The respondents would contend that all facilities contemplated by the Prisons Act cannot be extended to all prisoners indiscriminately. There are dangerous prisoners and security prisoners in jail. The dangerous and security prisoners are to be accommodated in special cells in Central Prisons or High Security Prisons as per Section 36 of the Prisons Act.

12. Though the Prisons Act contemplates providing educational and other facilities for improving qualities, character and mental attitude of prisoners, such provision cannot be uniformly applied to all prisoners. The petitioner in this writ petition is a security prisoner who has been accused of committing offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Therefore, the petitioner is a security prisoner as contemplated under Section 2(xli), from whom there is a threat to the Society and to the security of the State. The petitioner has been detained in High Security Prison. Providing access to the petitioner to sophisticated electronic gadgets like mobile phone or digital display would not be in the interest of security of the jails.

W.A.No.780 of 2025 15

2026:KER:19443 In the circumstances, I do not deem it fit to give a direction to the Prison authorities to permit the petitioner to be online, even for the purpose of attending classes. The writ petition is hence dismissed."

7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI).

9. The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KHC 55], would submit that, while considering a similar request as that of the appellant made by a convict for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, a Division Bench of this Court granted permission to that person to attend the classes for LLB course through online mode. By placing reliance on Section 62 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (the 'Act' for short), the learned counsel submitted that making adequate facilities for imparting education to deserving prisoners in all prisons is an objective of their ultimate rehabilitation in W.A.No.780 of 2025 16 2026:KER:19443 society and therefore, the right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to exercise his fundamental right to education may not be curtailed.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University would submit that, as per Clause 22 of the Regulation for the 3 year Unitary LLB Course, the students have to undergo compulsory internship for not less than 12 weeks to carry out legal studies under Non-Governmental Organisations, etc. The aforesaid regulation prescribes some other training to be completed by regular study, and those prescriptions cannot be achieved by the appellant only by studying through online mode. Therefore, there is no illegality in denying the request of the appellant by the learned Single Judge. The learned Senior Government Pleader, by pointing out the contentions taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit, submitted that permission, if granted to the appellant, would adversely affect the security of the prison.

11. The learned DSGI would submit that Section 62 of the Act speaks about extending facilities to the prisoners only to acquire matriculation through distance education programmes W.A.No.780 of 2025 17 2026:KER:19443 and not to higher studies. The learned DSGI further pointed out that the admission obtained by the appellant is for the academic year 2024-25, and three semesters of the students who had secured admission during that academic year had already been completed. The learned DSGI further pointed out that in the order dated 11.04.2025 in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.445 of 2020, in the case of Balamurali N. v. Inspector of Police, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a prisoner is permitted to join educational courses through private, open universities or distance education, subject to the availability of resources and infrastructure within the prison. In that case, the application was filed by the prisoner who was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC and Section 5(f) r/w Section 6 and Section 9 (f) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for suspension of sentence and for granting interim bail to enable him to seek admission in a Law College, at Mangalore, in the light of Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55], was disallowed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.)No.8011 of 2025 as per the order dated 21.05.2025. W.A.No.780 of 2025 18

2026:KER:19443

12. To the argument raised by the learned DSGI regarding the completion of three semesters for the admissions of the academic year 2024-25, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a declaratory relief can be granted by this Court, even if the academic session is over.

13. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. The appellant is an undertrial prisoner in respect of a sessions case pending on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, and he is charge sheeted for the offences under Section 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant is the 4th accused in the said crime. According to the 3rd respondent, the appellant is involved in a serious offence, and for that reason, he is inducted in the High Security Prison at Viyyur. He is accused in another case now pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court - II, as S.C.No.765 of 2016, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 283, 343, 332, 333 and Section 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under the provisions of PDPP Act.

14. Section 2 (xii) of the Act defines a dangerous prisoner W.A.No.780 of 2025 19 2026:KER:19443 as any prisoner who is violently predisposed or showing violent disposition continuously or likely to escape from prison. Section 2 (xxxiv) of the Act defines a prisoner as an undertrial prisoner or a convicted prisoner or a civil prisoner and includes a prisoner remanded under the orders of a competent authority. Section 2 (xli) of the Act defines a security prisoner as any prisoner from whom there is a threat to the society or to the security of the State. According to the respondents, the appellant is a security prisoner.

15. As per Section 12 of the Act, providing education and other facilities for improving the qualities, character and mental attitude of prisoners is one of the functions of the prison. Similarly, as pointed out during the course of the arguments, Section 62 (3) of the Act provides for extending facilities to matriculate to advance their education through distance education programmes to the inmates of the prison, with an objective of their ultimate rehabilitation in society. But none of the provisions under the Act prescribes that the inmate of the prison has to be given facilities through a distance education programme or online mode to acquire a higher qualification than matriculation. W.A.No.780 of 2025 20

2026:KER:19443

16. The appellant is requesting facilities for studying 3 year LLB course through online mode. The conduct of classes and the completion of such courses will be regulated by the University concerned. As per the Regulations pertaining to regulation for the 3 year Unitary LLB Course, which were prescribed by the University as per Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and approved by the Board of Studies Meeting held on 17.09.2018, a compulsory internship is mandatory for 3 year LLB course. The said regulation read thus;

"22. Compulsory Internship As per the Rules of Legal Education laid down by the Bar Council, 2008, each three year student has to undergo an internship for not less than twelve weeks to carry out legal studies under Non-Governmental Organizations, trial advocates, appellate advocates, judiciary, legal regulatory authorities, legislatures and Parliament, other legal functionaries, market institutions, law firms, companies, Local Self Government and in other legal institutions where such training can be imparted to such students. Students cannot undergo internship in any year continuously for more than four weeks. All students are expected to undergo training under trial and appellate advocates not more than twice.

The Bar Council has also stipulated that each student shall W.A.No.780 of 2025 21 2026:KER:19443 keep an Internship Diary. The Internship Diary has to be prepared and kept by the student in such a manner so that the evaluator may be able to assess the cumulative performance of the student. The Diary shall contain the details of training a student has undergone, the total number of days of each session of training and the nature of work done by the student/training imparted to him. After each spell of such internship, the record, prepared by the student in his own handwriting, shall be signed by the head/chief of the institution where he has undergone training, and the faculty-in-charge of him. The students shall be guided and evaluated by the faculty as appointed by the Principal. A student who has to complete more than four weeks of internship shall not be promoted to the sixth semester. He can rejoin the course only after completion of the required weeks of internship in the subsequent batches:

Provided that, after each spell of internship, the evaluator/s shall assess the performance of the students, on the basis of the days of his attendance in the internship, involvement and awareness about the work accomplished and also the preparation of the records. The evaluator shall record the assessment objectively after perusing the record of internship. A student who has satisfactorily completed the internship shall alone be eligible to be promoted to the next semester/year. A student who has not satisfactorily completed the internship programme has to redo the same with their subsequent batch.

Provided further that, being a component of the Clinical W.A.No.780 of 2025 22 2026:KER:19443 paper IV, attending the chamber of lawyers and observing trials in two cases shall be confined to the tenth semester and its record shall be prepared separately in the Record of the Clinical paper IV, ie., FL 30 Moot Court Exercise and Internship. Attending the lawyer's chambers before the tenth semester will not be reckoned for the purpose of FL

30."

[Underline supplied]

17. In the order dated 11.04.2025 in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.445 of 2020, a learned Single Judge of this Court considered an application moved under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, by the appellant/accused seeking interim bail for a period of one month to enable him to seek admission in a Law College at Mangalore. Paragraphs 13 to 15 of that order read thus;

"13. As held by the Apex court, prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Hence, they will not be able to enjoy all rights like a free citizen. When directions are given to the jail authorities it will have to be within the framework of the Jail Rules. Courts must be reluctant to intervene in the day-to-day operation of the State penal system as prisons cannot be run by courts as each instrumentality must function within its province. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, to implement the requests of such nature in the prisons in Kerala, necessary infrastructure will first have to be put in place. This is an area where a policy W.A.No.780 of 2025 23 2026:KER:19443 decision will have to be taken by the Government. It is well settled that in policy matters, courts generally do not intervene.

14. Having thus reminded myself of the contours of jurisdiction of this court, let me consider whether there are provisions in the Rules presently in force to deal with the request of the applicant. I refer to Rule 258(13) of the Rules which says that prisoners are permitted to join educational courses through private, open universities or distance education subject to the availability of resources and infrastructure within the prison. I also refer to Rule 259 which says that if a prisoner expresses a desire to continue his studies in college for the purpose of completing a degree course, the Government may, under subsection (6) of Section 432 Cr.P.C, grant him a temporary release by suspending the execution of his sentence for such period as may be necessary for that purpose. Any rules made by the government in this regard shall also apply to such release. The aforesaid Rules still remain in the Statute book and as long as the said Rules have not been held to be unconstitutional or against the provisions of any law or Rules in force, there is no reason why the said Rules cannot be invoked by the convicts.

15. Coming to the case on hand, the applicant herein, a teacher, is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on few of his own students aged between 8 to 12. He was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f) IPC and Section 5 (f) read with Section W.A.No.780 of 2025 24 2026:KER:19443 6 and Section 9 (f) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been convicted accordingly. 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."

[Underline supplied]

18. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Apex Court as per the order dated 21.05.2025 in SLP(Crl.) No.8011 of 2025. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55] was also taken note of by the learned Single Judge while passing the aforesaid order.

19. As observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the education and all other facilities for improving the qualities, character, and mental attitude of the prisoners cannot be uniformly applied to all the prisoners. Therefore, the consideration in Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55], of the Division Bench, has no universal application. In Pattakka Suresh Babu [2024 (1) KHC 55], the petitioner W.A.No.780 of 2025 25 2026:KER:19443 therein was not an undertrial prisoner, but was a life convict of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. But, in the instant case, the appellant is an undertrial prisoner of offences that affect the security of the nation.

20. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, we notice that there are no sufficient facilities in the Jail to provide an online mode of study to an inmate. The limited resources available in the jail are for the purpose of enabling the inmates to attend the court proceedings online.

21. Apart from all, as noted above, the course of study prescribed for the 3 year LLB course by the 1st respondent University is through a regular mode of study. The said stipulation in the University Regulation cannot be relaxed for one student, especially when the course curriculum prescribes a regular course of study and physical appearance for completion of the internship programme, etc. While considering the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, we find no illegality in the finding of the learned Single Judge that providing access to the appellant to sophisticated electronic gadgets like mobile phones, or digital displays would not be in the interest of the security of W.A.No.780 of 2025 26 2026:KER:19443 the jail.

22. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court