Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Enhancement Of Prison Wages In State

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (05 February) dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the State Government's recent decision to enhance the wages paid to convicted prisoners. The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M dismissed the petition. The petition was filed by advocate Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi questioning the legality of the January 9, 2026 executive decision revising daily prison wages from the earlier range of ₹63–₹168 to ₹530–₹620 per day. According to the petitioner, the revision amounts to a multi-fold and, in some categories, nearly nine-fold increase in one stroke.The PIL argues that the revised wages translate to a monthly earning of approximately ₹15,000 to ₹18,600 for prisoners, while all living expenses such as food, housing, clothing, and healthcare continue to be borne entirely by the State. This, the petitioner submitted, creates a “constitutionally impermissible economic inversion,”. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat [(1998) 7 SCC 392], and asserted that prison labour is not “employment” in the legal sense and that wages paid to prisoners are intended to be equitable and incentive-based, not comparable to statutory minimum wages. The Supreme Court had cautioned that prison wages must not result in prisoners receiving a net economic advantage over free labour once State-provided amenities are accounted for.The petitioner also highlighted that, under existing minimum wage notifications issued by the Kerala government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, unskilled free workers the basic pay is ₹15,000 per month, while the basic pay for semi-skilled and skilled workers ₹15,720 and ₹18,000 without subsidised living costs. The petitioner argued that the honorarium of elected members in LSGI also have a lower pay as compared to the revised wages.The Court said that the non-revision of the pay scale for others does not hinder from revising the wages of the prisoner. “That does not mean that they will not get it.. You may ask for the revision of pay scale…The government has not revised the payment of scale for others, does not mean that they will not get this amount” the Court said It further observed that the wages for the prisoner is part of the rehabilitation. “They are not getting it for free. They are working .. that is part of the scheme so that they can be rehabilitated” orally observedThe PIL further contended that the prison authorities lack statutory competence under the Prisons Act, 1894 and State Prison Rules to fix wages at levels approaching or exceeding market wages payable to free citizens. It also alleged procedural arbitrariness, pointing out that the government order revising prison wages has not been published in the official Gazette or on the government website, allegedly in violation of mandatory disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.The Government Pleader submitted that the order revising the wages was issued pursuant to observations and direction by the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India and Others [2024 INSC 753], The Court noted that rehabilitation and reintegration into the society must also be taken into account while considering the jurisprudence of reformation. "Once the advanced jurisprudence relating to reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration is taken into account, it becomes imperative that, upon release from prison, a prisoner has adequate funds and resources available to enable him to begin a new life after the period of incarceration." Court added. The Court in its order has also noted that there has been inflation in the past years and that should also be considered, as the amount that a prisoner was receiving seven years earlier would not confer the same benefit after the passage of time. "In exercise of judicial review, unless this Court is of the view that the decision is wholly arbitrary or capricious, it would not be appropriate to enter into the reasonableness of the justification that led to the issuance of the impugned memorandum by the Government. On such consideration, we do not find any merit in the challenge." the Court concluded. With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v State of Kerala and OrsCase No: WP(PIL) 25/ 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73Party in PersonClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Enhancement Of Prison Wages In State

Anamika MJ

Tags