‘Right to marry not right to leave jail’: Andhra High Court denies parole to convict

“The right to marry does not confer an unconditional right either to release on parole or to convert a Central Prison into a marriage venue… The right to marry does not automatically include a right to leave prison for marriage,” the court said on August 22.

According to the plea, after her daughter and the convict decided to marry, the woman consented to the wedding and submitted a representation on August 12 seeking parole. The marriage was fixed for 11.28 am on August 23 at Kodandaramaswamy Devastanam in Gudur, according to the petition.

Right to marry

The court said imprisonment does not strip a convict of all fundamental rights. Referring to Supreme Court rulings including D Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration, the court noted that fundamental rights remain enforceable for prisoners, though their exercise is restricted by imprisonment.

Justice Sunitha Gandham said the parole rules did not create a right to use a high-security central prison as a venue for a private marriage.

It said that “the right to choose a spouse and marry is an aspect of personal liberty and dignity”. However, it distinguished that right from a right to leave prison for a wedding, saying its exercise could be restricted by lawful incarceration, prison discipline, security concerns and parole rules.

The court also noted that Rule 1(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules, 2024 provides for parole for the marriage of a prisoner’s family member or near relative or for any other sufficient cause, but does not expressly recognise the prisoner’s own marriage as an independent ground.

Previous escape

Opposing the plea, the state cited the convict’s previous conduct. The prisoner, serving a life sentence for murder, had completed nearly 11 years in prison. His appeals before the high court and the Supreme Court had been dismissed, confirming his conviction and sentence.

The court said that he escaped from the outer prison premises at the Old Central Prison, Mulapet, Nellore, in 2014 and surrendered after 1,736 days. The state also informed the court that he had nine prison punishments and argued that there was a possibility of him absconding or becoming involved in further offences if released.

Existing punishment blocks parole

A further hurdle was a prison punishment imposed on August 26, 2025, involving stoppage of interviews and telephone facilities for three months. Noting that a prisoner subjected to punishment becomes eligible to apply for the next release on parole only after two years from the expiry of the punishment period, the court said that period had not yet ended in the man’s case.

It also referred to the principle that “parole is not a vested right, it is a privilege available on satisfying the prescribed conditions”, with the primary discretion resting with the authority designated under the rules.

The prospective bride’s mother had also mentioned alternatives to 30 days’ parole – the convict could be taken under full escort to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam for six hours, or the wedding could be conducted inside the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.

However, the court rejected both options. “A high-security Central Prison cannot be equated with an open-air camp, especially where the convict has previously escaped and repeatedly violated prison discipline,” it said.

The judge noted that the parole rules did not create a right to use a high-security central prison as a venue for a private marriage and said security arrangements, including the entry of the bride, relatives and priest, would have to be considered.

Ultimately, the court held that the convict was not entitled to parole or 30 days or even less, or an escorted temple visit, considering his previous escape, prison punishments and the restrictions under prison rules. The court left open a future parole request, saying the life convict could renew his plea after completion of the two years under prison rules, if circumstances changed and his conduct in jail was satisfactory.