KERALA | 4TH JUNE 2025 – In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court recently reiterated that Indian criminal jurisprudence prioritizes reformation over mere punishment, emphasizing the need to address the root causes of crime in society.
THE CASE: REMOVAL FROM ROWDY LIST
The judgment was delivered in a petition filed by a man seeking removal of his name and photograph from the rowdy list maintained by the Fort Kochi Police Station. The petitioner argued that he had not been involved in any criminal activity for over eight years. He highlighted his stable job, improved social circle, regular church visits, and noted that he had been acquitted in all but one case (with the remaining case still pending trial).
On the other hand, the public prosecutor opposed the plea, stating that the petitioner maintained connections with known criminals and therefore required continued surveillance.
KERALA HIGH COURT: COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON REFORMATION
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, delivering the judgment, made several significant observations on the philosophy behind criminal justice in India. He emphasized that external factors contribute to criminal behavior, such as economic hardship, lack of education, unemployment, dysfunctional family backgrounds, and mental health issues.
“To remove criminal activities from our society, better education, creating job opportunities, support for mental health, community engagement, etc., are important. By addressing these underlying factors, society can work towards reducing crime rates and promoting a safer, more supportive environment for all, including the criminals,” the Court opined.
Justice Kunhikrishnan stressed that society itself plays a role in creating criminals and has a duty to facilitate their reformation.
“An environment in which society continues to blame criminals simply because of their past history should be avoided. A person is not born as a criminal. The society and all of us create criminals because of certain situations which should be avoided. Therefore, every citizen has a duty to see that the criminals are going on a reformatory pathway,” he said.
REFERENCE TO VALMIKI AND PAST ORDERS
The judge cited the example of Valmiki, a revered sage in Hindu mythology, to illustrate the potential for transformation.
“As per the Hindu purana, ‘Ramayanam’ was written by Valmiki. Valmiki, one of the most revered sages in Hindu mythology, was originally a forest dweller who lived a life of crime, by robbing travellers in the forest to support his family. The puranic story says that, after he met the ‘Saptarishis’ (Seven sages) and heard their words, he reformed and thereafter wrote the great epic ‘Ramayana’. It cannot be said that a criminal will always be a criminal and a rowdy will always be a rowdy. If the person is coming with a genuine claim that he is on the reformative pathway, the court cannot ignore the same,” the Court stated.
Justice Kunhikrishnan also referred to a 2023 order in which he had granted parole to “Ripper” Jayanandhan, a convicted murderer, to attend the launch of his book.
“I am not saying that the above-mentioned person is already reformed. But it seems that he is on the path of reformation. It is also to be noted that the relatives of the persons who were murdered by him are also in the society. That is one of the reasons why he is continuing in jail even now,” the judge explained.
COURT’S DECISION
Considering the submissions, the Court directed that the petitioner’s name and photo be removed from the rowdy list. However, it cautioned the petitioner to stay on his reformatory path and recognized that the police’s intention was only to protect society.
The Court also clarified that a rowdy list is meant only for internal police use, not for public display.
“It is clear that the photographs of the criminals are not displayed in the police station premises, which is accessible to the public. It will be kept in a secure area accessible only to the police personnel, ensuring confidentiality and preventing public exposure. Therefore, there is no infringement of the privacy of the criminals, and society should also know the same,” the Court said.
REPRESENTATION
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shabu Sreedharan, while Senior Public Prosecutor P Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S appeared for the State.
