JUDGMENT : KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J. 1. The petitioner is the nephew of the convict, who is undergoing life imprisonment at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur. The petitioner's marriage is scheduled for 26.12.2025, as evident from Ext. P4 invitation card. The petitioner submitted an application to the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur, seeking ten days' emergency leave for the convict to attend the marriage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said application. Hence, he has approached this Court to give a direction to the respondents to grant emergency leave to the convict for the period from 20.12.2025 to 29.12.2025. 2. I have heard Sri.Subash Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 3. Rule 400 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (for short 'the Rules') deals with the grant of emergency leave. As per Rule 400(1) (ii), a convict is eligible for emergency leave to attend the marriage of close relatives mentioned therein. It reads thus: “ 400. Emergency leave: (1) Any well behaved convicted prisoner other than a person convicted in respect of any offence relating to National Security shall be eligible for emergency leave under any of the very exceptional circumstances specified below, namely. (i) xxx (ii) Marriage of son, daughter, brother and sister, grandson, granddaughter, brother-in law, sister-in law, direct nephew, direct niece.” 4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the application for emergency leave filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules. It is submitted that the Jail Superintendent interpreted the term (direct nephew) as the sister's son of the convict and not the brother's son. I cannot accept the said interpretation. The large number of writ petitions filed before this Court challenging rejection of applications for emergency leave invoking Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules would also show that a wrong interpretation is being given to the terms by almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State. 5. The term cannot be interpreted to mean only the sister's son or daughter. There cannot be any discrimination between the sister's children and the brother's children. Exclusion of the convict’s brother’s son or daughter from the purview of Rule 400 (1)(ii) would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 5. The term cannot be interpreted to mean only the sister's son or daughter. There cannot be any discrimination between the sister's children and the brother's children. Exclusion of the convict’s brother’s son or daughter from the purview of Rule 400 (1)(ii) would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I hold that emergency leave can be granted to the convict, invoking Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules, to attend the marriage of not only the convict's sister's son or daughter, but also the convict's brother's son or daughter as well, subject to the conditions in sub-rule (1) of Rule 400. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur is directed to grant emergency leave to the convict for a week with effect from 23.12.2025. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Jail Superintendents of all prisons in the State. The writ petition is disposed of as above.