Case Name: AJEESH KALATHIL GOPI VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
Petition Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 25 of 2026
Citation: 2026:KER:9931
Date of Judgment: 05.02.2026
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
Background:
This PIL challenged the Kerala Government’s decision to substantially increase the daily wages payable to convicted prisoners engaged in prison labour. The Kerala High Court had to examine the scope of judicial review over prison administration and wage policies, and to determine whether enhancement of prisoners’ wages could be struck down for giving them an economic advantage over free citizens.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner filed a PIL challenging the State Government’s decision to increase wages of convicted prisoners engaged in prison labour. The decision enhanced daily wages to:
– ₹620 for skilled work,
– ₹560 for semi-skilled work, and
– ₹530 for unskilled work.
Issues of the Case:
- Whether the enhancement of prisoners’ wages to ₹530–₹620 per day is arbitrary or unconstitutional.
- Whether prison labour wages must be decided strictly on the basis of statutory minimum wages payable to free workers.
- Whether the Government violated Supreme Court precedent by revising prisoners’ wages.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of constitutional principles. Fixing daily wages for prisoners at rates as high as ₹530 to ₹620 would create an unfair situation, especially when several categories of free workers, including those engaged under schemes such as MGNREGA and ASHA, were paid significantly lower wages. It was further submitted that prisoners are not subject to the same economic obligations as ordinary citizens. Paying prisoners wages higher than those fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for free labour was in contravention of settled principles governing prison labour.
The State justified the wage revision by referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India. The decision was taken considering the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society, and it was very much in accordance with the Constitution. It was argued that convicted prisoners do not lose their basic human dignity.
The State further stated that the comparison with minimum wages payable to free workers was irrelevant because the decision was made to ensure that prisoners have financial support upon release. Since the wage revision aligned with the Supreme Court’s views on prisoners’ rights, the respondents argued that the PIL deserved dismissal.
Judgement and Analysis:
The Kerala High Court dismissed the PIL and upheld the State Government’s decision to revise prisoners’ wages. It was held that the main aim of the wage enhancement was to ensure the reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of prisoners. The decision was not arbitrary as convicted prisoners are still entitled to equitable wages, as recognised in State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.
The Court noted that there had been significant inflation since the last wage revision. Thus, enhancement of wages was an absolutely legitimate decision. It was emphasised that policy decisions are subject to judicial review only if they are arbitrary or unreasonable. No such arbitrariness was found in the present case.
Conclusion:
The decision clarifies that equitable wages for prison labour are in accordance with constitutional values, and that enhancement of such wages cannot be struck down merely because free workers in other sectors earn less.
