‘UAPA Conviction Doesn’t Strip Fundamental Rights’: Kerala HC on Convict’s Plea to Publish Prison Memoir

The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to take a decision within three months on the request of UAPA convict Roopesh T.R. to publish a book he wrote while in prison, observing that conviction does not strip a person of fundamental rights, including the freedom of thought and expression.

Justice V.G. Arun passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Roopesh, who is serving his sentence at the Central Prison, Viyyur, following his conviction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner told the court that he had authored a Malayalam book titled “Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal” (Memoirs of the Incarcerated) and sought permission to publish it. The prison superintendent had forwarded his manuscript and recommendation to the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, but no decision had been taken for several months.

Roopesh, who completed a Master’s degree in History and is pursuing postgraduate studies in Philosophy and Malayalam through the Indira Gandhi National Open University, said the delay violated his constitutional right to live with dignity and express his thoughts freely. He pointed out that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, does not prohibit prisoners from writing or publishing literary works.

The State submitted that the government was not opposed to the publication but that, given the petitioner’s conviction under the UAPA, it was necessary to scrutinise the content before granting permission.

It was stated that the authorities had to ensure the book did not contain material that could be considered unlawful under Section 2(o) of the UAPA, such as content inciting violence, spreading hatred or disaffection, or promoting banned organisations. The State said it would take at least three months to examine the manuscript and arrive at a decision.

Court noted that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights upon conviction and that their liberty can be curtailed only to the extent required by imprisonment. “By reason of the conviction, a person is not reduced to a non-person and his rights made subject to the whims of the prison administration,” the judge observed.

Justice Arun said a prisoner’s right to express thoughts through writing forms part of their personal dignity and intellectual freedom. “Thoughts and dreams being internal and intangible are beyond external control or curtailment. For prisoners like the petitioner, the examination can be stricter, but never an insurmountable obstacle,” the judgment said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri (AIR 1966 SC 424), court said that unless a publication contains material against national interest, a prisoner cannot be prevented from publishing his work. It observed that the Kerala Prisons Act and Rules do not empower the authorities to restrict prisoners from publishing their writings.

Court pointed out that Rule 254 of the 2014 Rules permits prisoners to read and write within specified hours, reflecting the reformative intent of the legislation.

Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the State government to take a decision within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment and to communicate it to the petitioner without delay. While doing so, the government was asked to take into account the Supreme Court’s observations in Sanzgiri and the findings recorded in the present judgment.

The petitioner, Roopesh T.R., was represented by Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, assisted by Advocates Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Narayan Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony, Tarun Philip, and Saran Dev P.B. The State and prison authorities were represented by Senior Government Pleader Amminikutty

Case Title: Roopesh T.R. vs. State of Kerala and Others

Order Date: November 3, 2025

Bench: Justice V.G. Arun