Creativity Curtailed in Kerala?

One of the most popular books among Kerala intellectuals is the ‘Prison Notebooks’, a collection of essays written by well-known Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. In the same land where Gramsci is widely read, a political prisoner has been fighting to get his book published. Maoist leader Roopesh, imprisoned at Viyyur Central Jail in Kerala since his arrest in May 2015, has been denied permission to publish his novel ‘Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal’ (Memoirs of the Imprisoned). “We are told that the book was denied permission because of the references to jail, but there are no such explicit references,” says P. A. Shyna, Roopesh라이브 바카라 wife.

Facing 43 cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other charges across Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, Roopesh has been acquitted in one case, discharged in 13, and convicted in one, with ongoing legal battles. He continues to fight the remaining 28 cases across various courts in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A law graduate, Roopesh has pursued further education in jail, completing a postgraduate degree in history, studying philosophy, and engaging in creative pursuits like writing, running a jail radio, and filmmaking

Roopesh wrote his second novel in Malayalam, ‘Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal’ (Memoirs of Prisoners), a 130-page work, while in prison. It explores the life of a poet-political activist in jail, offering a critical perspective on systemic issues in India, according to Shyna. His first novel, ‘Vasanthathinte Poomarangal’ (Flowering Trees of Spring; 2013), penned while he was underground, had already garnered attention.

In early 2025, Roopesh sought permission from Viyyur Central Jail authorities to publish ‘Bandhitharude Ormakurippukal’. The jail authorities orally denied the request, citing that the novel contains “sensitive details of his prison experience and commentary on the UAPA”, which they deemed inappropriate. Shyna says that the novel avoids explicit references to the jail, UAPA, or the courts, and offers a broader critique of systemic issues instead.

When contacted for a comment, the jail authorities declined to specify which particular portions of the novel they find objectionable.

The manuscript was shared with prominent Malayalam writers, who praised its artistic merit, reinforcing its literary value. Initially, Roopesh had planned an indefinite hunger strike starting from March 2, 2025, coinciding with the anniversary of the death of Rajan, a student killed in police custody during the Emergency, to protest the denial of permission to publish his novel. Later, he reduced it to a one-day hunger strike. This act of protest drew attention to the issue, amplifying public and literary discourse about the book and the rights of prisoners.

A group of writers and activists rallied in support of Roopesh, condemning the jail authorities’ decision as an attack on creative freedom. “Leaders like Gandhi and Nehru penned many of their works during their jail terms. In jail, people live in solitude, which leads them to write books. A person being in jail does not entitle the State to curb their creative freedom. I don’t know the contents of his book, but I want to read it, and I also want to know what makes the State take a decision to disallow the publication of this book,” says Sara Joseph, writer and activist.

“We have renowned leaders and writers like Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Gandhi, and Nehru, who used their time in jail to write books. All their works were published. Roopesh should also have the freedom to publish his book,” says K.G. Sankara Pillai, a prominent Malayalam poet. Tamil writer Meena Kandasamy condemned the jail authorities, alleging that the government finds writings from jail to be a threat. “When the voices of prisoners are silenced, we are forced to accept a world where those in power decide who can speak and what can be spoken,” she says. Several other writers and activists rallied behind the social media hashtag campaign “Creativity is Not a Crime”. Opposition leader V.D. Satheesan calls it a “disgrace to Kerala”. He says, “The denial of permission to publish the book of a political prisoner causes a huge embarrassment to Kerala라이브 바카라 image as a progressive society.”

According to legal experts, denying an imprisoned person the right to publish a book violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19. The Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules allow controlled internet access for legal aid, as seen in Roopesh라이브 바카라 2020 court-ordered permission to use the internet for 45 minutes weekly to access legal resources. However, no specific rule prohibits prisoners from publishing literary works, making the jail라이브 바카라 decision appear arbitrary.

The precedent set by the judiciary also strongly favours a prisoner라이브 바카라 right to publish, though it varies from case to case. For example, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that prisoners have the right to communicate grievances to judicial authorities without undue censorship. The Court emphasised that “true technical and legal niceties” do not impede informal communications from prisoners, recognising their right to express themselves under Article 21. This case established that prisoners’ writings, including complaints, are protected and can lead to judicial intervention. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (the infamous “Auto Shankar” case), the Supreme Court upheld his right to publish his autobiography, provided the content does not infringe upon another person라이브 바카라 privacy or constitute defamation.

Shyna says that they have been exploring the scope of a judicial remedy. According to her, this is not a fight for Roopesh alone, but one to protect the freedom of speech of those who live under vulnerable conditions like prisoners.