By 
The Supreme Court’s Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu on Monday directed the State of Kerala to file its response to a plea filed by death-row convict Muhammed Ameer-Ul-Islam, seeking transfer from Viyyur Central Prison in Kerala to a prison in Assam so that he can remain closer to his family.
Case Background
Ameer-Ul-Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam, is the sole convict sentenced to death for the 2016 rape and murder of a Dalit law student in Perumbavoor, Kerala. The victim, a student of Government Law College, Ernakulam, was found murdered at her home in Perumbavoor on April 28, 2016. Ameer-Ul-Islam was arrested in Tamil Nadu in July 2016.
The Sessions Court convicted him in December 2017 and sentenced him to death. The death sentence was subsequently confirmed by the Kerala High Court. However, in July 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the death sentence.
The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court to seek transfer from Viyyur Central Prison in Kerala to a prison in Assam, where his family reside. His plea states that his family is extremely poor and unable to travel to Kerala to meet him.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2010 cannot override the statutory provisions of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950.
He also argued that refusing the transfer prevents his family from meeting him because of their extreme financial hardship, violating his fundamental rights under Article 20 and 21 of the constitution.
He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, which held that prisoners continue to have fundamental rights and must be protected from cruel, harsh or inhuman treatment.
Rebecca John’s Submissions
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Islam, referred to Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. She said a death-row prisoner cannot ordinarily be transferred unless proceedings against him are pending before a court. She pointed out that those proceedings had already concluded, as the trial court had sentenced Ameer-Ul-Islam to death and the Kerala High Court had confirmed the sentence in 2024.
Justice Datta, however, questioned whether the State of Assam had consented to receiving the convict. The court asked, “Where is the consent of Assam?”
John replied that Assam had not yet formally given its consent because the State had said that it would consider the request only after Kerala allowed the transfer. Counsel for Assam also informed the Court that the State would consider the request if Kerala allowed the transfer.
John also referred to Rule 789, which the Kerala government has relied upon to oppose the transfer on the ground that transfer cannot take place while an appeal is pending.
Court Questions Transfer Rule
The Bench also examined Rule 587 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2010, which restricts the transfer of death-row prisoners to prisons in another State.
Justice Datta asked whether the petitioner had specifically challenged the validity of the provision. John clarified that while the original writ petition did not challenge the Rule, the petition was later amended to include a challenge to its vires.
The Court then asked John to identify the amended prayers containing this challenge. It also questioned the Kerala government whether it had filed a response to the application seeking amendment of the petition.
Kerala’s counsel stated that he was not aware of the amendment. The Court therefore directed Kerala to file its counter-affidavit to the amendment application and issued notice.
Court’s Suggestion
Justice Datta advised the Kerala government to consider amending its rules to bring them in line with the central legislation. He warned that otherwise, the State rule could be challenged before the Court.
The court said, “Now that madam has shown us the 1950 Rules, if you don’t want your rule to be struck down, please advise your client.”
Case Details: MUHAMMED AMEER UL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF KERALA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 455/2022 Diary No. 35272 / 2022
