Legalsutra - Law Students' Knowledge-Base - Law School Projects, Moot Court Memorials, Class and Case Notes and More! - Prisoner Rights PDF

10/16/2016
Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!|prisonerrights
Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotes
andmore!
BetterLegalResearch
Welcome
About
AimsandObjectives
TheIdea
Whythiswebsite:Purpose,Uniqueness&DiscouragingPlagiarism
LegalsutrasPolicyRegardingPlagiarismandCopyright
TermsandConditions
PrivacyandDisclosurePolicy
Credits
Contribute
Why&HowtoPublish
ResearchTools
LawKhojResearch
IndianLegalLinks
OpenAccessLawResources
WorldLegalLinks
USLegalLinks
UKLegalResources
SearchSite
BrowseContent
ContactUs
Poststaggedprisonerrights
RoleoftheSupremeCourttowardsaNewPrisonJurisprudence
0
6years
byContributedPapersinCriminalProcedure
Printthis
TableofContents
TableofContents
TableofCases
Introduction
Methodology
PrisonersRightsinIndia
RighttoFairProcedure
http://legalsutra.com/tag/prisonerrights/
1/32
10/16/2016
PersonalLiberty
TheExtentofJudicialInterference
TheSunilBatraCases
RighttoSpeedyTrial
RightagainstCruelandUnusualPunishment
DeathSentence
RighttoLegalAid
RighttoCompensation
VotingRightsofPrisoners
TheRightsofWomenPrisoners
RightsofChildPrisoners
ChildSlaveryandBondedLabourinJail
CorruptionandLawlessnessinJails
PrisonsPrescriptionsandProspects
TheProblemofNonImplementation
Conclusion
Bibliography
TableofCases
1)AbdulRehmanAntulayv.RSNayak(1992)1SCC225:AIR1992SC1701.
2)ACPradhanv.UnionofIndia,(1997)6SCC243.
3)AeltemishReinv.UnionofIndia,(1988)4SCC54:AIR1988SC1768.
4)Agarwalv.Vasantraj,AIR1988SC1106.
5)AKGopalanv.StateofMadras,AIR1950SC27.
6)AnilYadavv.StateofBihar,(1981)1SCC622.
7)Babuv.StateofUP,AIR1978SC527.
8)BachanSinghv.StateofPunjab,(1980)2SCC684:AIR1980SC898.
9)BiswanathPrasadSinghv.StateofBihar,(1994)Supp.(3)SCC735.
10)CharlesSobhrajv.DelhiAdministration,(1978)4SCC104:AIR1978SC1514.
2/32
10/16/2016
11)CitizensforDemocracyv.StateofAssam,(1995)3SCC743.
12)CommonCause(ARegisteredSociety)v.UnionofIndia,JT1996(4)SC701.
13)DayaSinghv.UnionofIndia,(1991)3SCC61AIR1991SC1548.
14)DBMPatnaikv.StateofAP,(1975)3SCC185:AIR1974SC2092.
15)Deenav.UnionofIndia,(1983)4SCC645AIR1983SC1155.
16)DKBasuv.StateofWB,(1997)1SCC.
17)Dr.JainendrakumarVijaykumarBadjatev.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1990SC1224.
18)FrancisCoralieMullanv.DelhiAdministration,AIR1981SC746.
19)Guinv.Grindlays,AIR1986SC289.
20)HarbansSinghv.StateofUP,1991Supp(2)SCC507:AIR1991SC531.
21)HussainaraKhatoon(I)to(VI)v.HomeSecretary,Bihar(1980)1SCC81,91,93,98,108,&115.
22)InRe:MPDwivedi,(1996)4SCC152
23)JagmohanSinghv.StateofUP,(1973)1SCC20:AIR(1973)SC947.
24)KadraPahadiyav.StateofBihar,(1983)2SCC104:AIR1982SC1167
25)KartarSinghv.StateofPunjab,(1994)3SCC569
26)KartarSinghv.StateofPunjab,(1994)3SCC569
27)Khatri(III)v.StateofBihar,(1981)1SCC635AIR1981SC928.
28)KiranBedi&anr.v.TheCommissionofInquiry&anr.,AIR1989SC714.
29)KishoreSinghv.StateofRajasthan,(1981)1SCC603:AIR1982SC625.
30)MadhuMehtav.UnionofIndia,(1989)4SCC62:AIR1989SC2299.
31)MangiLalv.StateofRajasthan,(1988)Cr.L.J.1188.
32)MathewAreeparnatilv.StateofBihar,(1985)2SCC102.
33)MenakaGandhiv.UnionofIndia,AIR1978SC597.
34)MHHoskotv.StateofMaharashtra,(1978)3SCC544:AIR1978SC1548.
35)Mohd.SalimKhanv.StateofUP,(1982)2SCC347:AIR1982SC1096
36)Munnav.StateofUP,(1982)1SCC545:AIR1982SC806.
37)NilabatiBeherav.StateofOrissa,(1993)2SCC746.
38)Poolpandiv.Supt.(1992)3SCC259.
39)PremShankarv.DelhiAdministration,(1980)3SCC526:AIR1980SC1535
3/32
10/16/2016
40)RaghubirSinghv.StateofBihar,AIR1987SC149.
41)Rakeshv.Supt.,CentralJail,NewDelhi,(1981)1SCC420:AIR1981SC760
42)RamaMurthyv.StateofKarnataka,(1997)2SCC642.
43)Ranchodv.StateofGujarat,A.I.R.1974SC1143.
44)RDUpadhyayv.StateofAndhraPradesh,(1996)3SCC422.
45)RudulShahv.StateofBihar,AIR1983SC1086.
46)SantBirv.StateofBihar,(1982)3SCC131:AIR1982SC1470
47)SheelaBarsev.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1986SC1773.
48)SheelaBarsev.UnionofIndia,(1986)3SCC596:AIR1986SC1773.
49)SherSinghv.StateofPunjab,(1983)2SCC344AIR1983SC465.
50)SrinivasGopalv.UnionTerritoryofArunachalPradesh,(1988)4SCC36:AIR1988SC1729
51)StateofA.P.v.Pavithran,AIR1990SC1266.
52)StateofMaharashtrav.RavikantS.Patil,(1991)2SCC373.
53)StateofMaharshtrav.ChampalalPunjajiShah,(1981)3SCC610AIR1981SC1675.
54)StateofMaharshtrav.PrabhakarPandurang,AIR1966SC424.
55)StateofPunjabv.AjaibSingh,(1995)2SCC486.
56)StateofPunjabv.KailashNath,AIR1989SC558.
57)StateofPunjabv.SarwanSingh,(1981)3SCC34:AIR1981SC1054
58)SukDasv.UnionTerritoryofArunachalPradesh,(1986)2SCC401:AIR1986SC991.
59)SunilBatrav.DelhiAdministration,(1978)4SCC494:AIRSC1675.
60)SunilGuptav.StateofMadhyaPradesh,(1990)3SCC119.
61)SupremeCourtLegalAidCommitteev.UnionofIndia,(1994)6SCC731.
62)Trivenibenv.StateofGujarat,(1988)4SCC574.
63)TVVatheeswaranv.StateofTamilNadu,AIR1983SC361.
64)VeenaSethiv.StateofBihar,(1982)2SCC583.
65)YogendraKumarv.DelhiAdministration,(1982)3SCC506.
Introduction
4/32
10/16/2016
Imprisonmentisthemostcommonmethodofpunishmentresortedtobyalmostallthelegalsystems.History
standsprooftoitsemploymentinancienttimes.[1]Initially,thepurposeofimprisonmentwastwofold:
deprivationoftheprisonerssociallifeandhissegregationfromsocietyasasecuritymeasure.Incourseoftime,
however,severalpurposessuchasdeterrence,incapacitationandreformationcametoberecognised.[2]Evenif
itdoesnothaveanydeterrentvalue,imprisonmentatleasrcompelstheprisonertositatleisure,repenthispast
conductandthenchangehisattitudeandbehaviour.
However,practicalexperiencesuggeststhatprisonsarefactorieswherecriminalsaremadeowingtotheregular
perpetrationofStatecrime.Inthenormalunderstandingofthesociety,prisonsareanunmentionabledisease
whichcultivatessocialoutcasts.Whenaprisonerisputbehindbarshelosesmanyofhisrights.Asentenceof
imprisonmentdoesnotautomaticallyextinguishalllegalrightsofaprisoner.Excepttherightsdeprivedtothe
personbytheincarceration,someresiduaryrightsremain.Apersonslibertyiscircumscribedbytheveryfactof
hisconfinement.ThefullpanoplyofFundamentalRightscannotbeenjoyedbyhim,butthephysicalrestrictions
imposedonhimmaynotbemorethanreasonablynecessaryforsecurity.[3]Convictionintheformofasentence
ofimprisonmentunderminesthefamilycohesionandsecurity,destroystheprospectsoflegalearningfor
himselfandforhisfamilyandresultsinthelossofemploymentandassets.Thequantumandnatureofloss
differsfromcountrytocountry.Itistruethatafterconvictionwhatrightstheprisonerretainsisacontroversial
topic.Theattitudeofthejudiciarydiffersfromcountrytocountry.Buteverywheretherightsoftheprisonersare
arecognisedfactthoughthescopevaries.
Itwasfromthebeginningofthiscenturythattheprisonerswererecognisedassocietalhumanbeingswho
shouldbemadeusefultothesociety.TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsrecognisesthattheindividual
isentitledtocertainbasicrights.Theuniversalnormisthathumanrightsaresacrosanctregardlessofthe
individual.Itisthereforeimperativetorecognisethatprisonerstooarehumanbeings,andashumanbeingsthey
areentitledtocertainbasicrightsevenwhileinincarceration.Deprivationofprisonerslibertyisaserious
inroadintotheexistenceandexerciseofhumanrights.Inthelightoftheseinternationaldevelopmentsvarious
rightsofprisonershavebeenrecognised.
JusticeKrishnaIyerhasaptlyindicatedtheneedofanationalprisonersrightspolicyinthenewsituation.
Accordingtohim:
Areformativephilosophy,rehabilitativestrategy,therapeuticprisontreatmentandenliveningofprisoners
personalitythroughatechnologyoffosteringthefullnessofbeingsuchacreativeartofsocialdefenceand
correctionalprocessactivatingfundamentalguaranteesofprisonersrights,isthehopefulnoteofnationalprison
policystruckbytheConstitutionandtheCourt.[4]
CriminalrightsjurisprudenceisafairlynewconceptinIndia.Assuchithasonlydevelopedinthelast25years
orso.Inthelast25yearstherehavebeenaplethoraofcasesonthetopic.TheSupremeCourthasreadanumber
ofveryimportantrightsintoArticle21,makingittrulythecharterofunenumeratedrights.Therightsthatthe
SupremeCourthasreadintoArticle21arerepresentativeofaseachangeintheattitudetoprisonersaroundthe
world.Theoldconceptionofprisonerswasthattheyweretobeplacedbeyondthelimitsofsociety.Theywere
treatedasoutcasts.Thepositionnowisthatprisonersshouldberehabilitated,andreadmittedintosociety.
Duringthefirst27yearsaftertheenactmentoftheConstitution,theSupremeCourtunfortunatelytookalimited
viewonArticle21.ItinterpretedArticle21asmerelyembodyingafacetoftheDiceyianconceptofruleoflaw.
inAKGopalanv.StateofMadras[5]theCourtadoptedahighlypositivistviewofArticle21.Ittooktheview
thatlawinArticle21meantonlyenactedlaw,andthesetwowerenotsubjecttotheconceptsofnatural
justice,reasonablenessanddueprocessoflaw.Effectively,thismeantthatiftherewasalawwhichprovided
somesortofprocedure,itwasenoughtodepriveapersonofhislifeandliberty.Theproblemwiththisargument
wasamplydemonstratedbyJusticeSRDasinhisjudgmentinGopalan[6],whenhegaveanexampleofalaw,
whichifitprovidedthatthecookoftheBishopofRochestershouldbeboiledinoil,wouldbevalidunder
Article21.
Thisviewstoodfor27years.Finally,inMenakaGandhiv.UnionofIndia[7],itwasoverruled.TheSupreme
CourtforthefirsttimetooktheviewthatprocedureunderArticle21hastoincludenaturaljusticethatthe
5/32
10/16/2016
proceduremustbejustandreasonable.AnyproceduremustbereadinaccordancewiththeGoldenTriangleof
Articles14,19&21.Anyprocedure,accordingtoJusticeBhagwati,mustbe:
rightandjustandfair,andnotarbitrary,fancifuloroppressive.
ThusArticle21assumedanewinterpretation,andthenewdimensionledtheCourttointroduceproceduraldue
intotheconstitutionallawofIndia.ThisnewinterpretationofArticle21becametheharbingerofadramatic
developmentofconstitutionallaw,particularlyinthefieldofcriminaljurisprudence.
ThefirstmajorsteptakenwasintheHussainaraKhatoon[8]cases.theCourtmadevariousorderswhichwenta
longwaytowardimbibingahumanrightsapproachintheadministrationofcriminaljustice.thestatisticsatthe
timeshowedthatatanygivenpointoftimethepercentageofundertrialprisonersalwaysexceededthatofthe
convicts.Theseundertrialprisonersconsistedmainlyoftwocategories:thosedeniedbail,andthosewhohad
notpaiditforonereasonoranother.TheLawCommissionofIndiastudiedthisprobleminits78threport.In
HussainaraKhatoons[9]case,theCourtfoundthatmanyundertrialprisonerswereinjaileitherbecausethey
werenotawareoftheirrighttoobtainreleaseonbail,andsonoapplicationforbailhadbeenmadeontheir
behalf,orbecausetheyweretoopoortohirealawyer.
TheCourtrealisedthatneithertheprovisionsofArticle22northeprovisionsofArticle39Acarriedtherightto
beprovidedwiththeservicesofalegalpractitioneratthestatescost.TheCourtmaintainedthataprocedure
whichdoesnotmakelegalservicesavailabletoanaccusedpersonwhoistoopoortoaffordalawyercannotbe
regardedasreasonable,fairandjust.TheCourtspeltouttherighttolegalaidinacriminalproceedingfromthe
languageofArticle21andheldthatthis
isaconstitutionalrightofeverypersonwhoisunabletoengagealawyerandsecurelegalservicesonaccount
ofreasonssuchaspoverty,indigenceorincommunicadosituationandtheStateisunderamandatetoprovidea
lawyertoanaccusedpersonifthecircumstancesofthecaseandtheneedsofjusticesorequire,providedof
coursetheaccuseddoesnotobjectstotheprovisionofsuchlawyer.
InHussainaraKhatoonscase,theCourtalsolaiddownanotherimportantfacetofdueprocess:therightto
speedytrial.Notingthatspeedytrialistheessenceofcriminaljusticeandthedelayintrialinitselfconstitutesa
violationofArticle21oftheConstitution,theCourtpointedoutthatthoughtherighttospeedytrialisnota
specificallyenumeratedrightintheConstitution,itisimplicitinthebroadsweepofArticle21.TheCourtthen
proceededtoholdthattheStatewasunderanobligationtotakeallstepsnecessaryforensuringthisrighttothe
accused,andtheStatecouldnotbepermittedtodenythisrightonthegroundthattheStatehadnoadequate
financialresources.TheCourtwasentitledtoenforcethisrightbyissuingnecessarydirectionstotheState
whichmightincludetakingofpositiveactioncalculatedtoensurespeedytrial.
TheSupremeCourtseffortsinthefieldofcriminaljurisprudencewerefurtheredinthecaseofFrancisCoralie
Mullanv.DelhiAdministration[10].TheSupremeCourtheldthattherighttolifewasnotconfinedtomere
physicalexistence,butalsoincludedtherighttouseeveryfacultyandlimb,andalsotherighttobasichuman
dignity.UsingthecreativeapproachandelaborationofrightsstrategytheCourtelevatedimmunityagainst
CruelandUnusualpunishmenttoafundamentalrightunderArticle21.
SinceHussainara,theCourthasvastlyexpandeduponthescopeofArticle21.InSheelaBarsev.Stateof
Maharashtra[11]theCourtlaiddownanumberofguidelinestodowithproceduraldueprocess.Italso
reaffirmedtherighttolegalaid.InSunilBatrav.DelhiAdministration[12]theCourtwentfurtherintotheright
tobeprotectedfromtorture.Itaddedtherighttospeedyexecution.TVVatheeswarams[13]caseestablishedthe
righttolegalaidfirmly.AndinNilabatiBehera[14]andRudulShah[15],theCourtdevelopedtheRightto
CompensationforthestatesviolationofArticle21.
TheSupremeCourthasbrokennewgroundinthefieldofcriminaljurisprudence.Theadvanceshavebeengreat.
Butthereisyetmuchworktobedone.AsyettheIndianprisonsystemisantiquated,andrequiresmuchwork.
AtleastnowotherauthoritiessuchastheNationalHumanRightsCommission,havealsowokenup,andthere
mightbesomeimprovementinthisarea.
6/32
10/16/2016
Methodology
TheaimofthispaperistolookattheRoleoftheSupremeCourttowardsaNewPrisonJurisprudence.The
paperaimsatreportingwhattheSupremeCourthassofardone,andsuggestingareaswheretheSupremeCourt
shouldhelpin.
Theresearchquestionsadoptedwere:
1)Whathasbeenthedevelopmentincriminalrightsjurisprudenceoverthelastfewyears?
2)WhatrolehastheSupremeCourtplayed?
3)Whatcanbedonetofurtherimprovethesituation?
TheresearcherhaschapterisedtheprojectaccordingtotheRightsconferreduponprisonersbytheSupreme
Court.
Thesourcesofthispaperweremainlycases.SincethetopicdealtwiththeactionsoftheSupremeCourt,the
researcherconcentratedoncasesasasourceofinformation.Theresearcherhasusedanumberofbooksand
articlesaswell.
Thepaperisessentiallydescriptiveinnature.
Auniformmethodofcitationhasbeenusedthroughout.
PRISONERSRIGHTSININDIA
InIndia,thestatusoftheprisonerandtherightsoftheprisonerareinconformitywithinternationalstandards.
Hismovementsarerestrictedandsomedisabilitiesareimposedontheprisoner.Variousrestrictionsareimposed
upontheexerciseoftheFundamentalRightsalso.Convictionofcertainoffencesalsoresultinthelossofcertain
civilrights.[16]But,unlikeinEngland,aconvictisunabletosuefortortsinIndia.[17]Nopermanentvoting
disqualificationexistsinIndiaitisthereforonlytheperiodofimprisonment.
HistoryofprisonersandprisonersrightsgobackevenbeforetotheenactmentofthePrisonActandPrison
Manuals.LegislationsthatdealwithprisonersinIndiaarePrisonersAct1894,PrisonersAct1900,Transferof
PrisonsAct1950andPrisoners(AttendanceinCourts)Act1955.ApartfromthespecificLegislations,Articles
14,19and21oftheConstitutionofIndiaarealsoverymuchrelevantwithregardtoprisonersrights.
IntheIndianConstitutionthehumanrightsprinciplesaregivenaprominentplace.Laterdevelopmentsin
prisonersrightstrulyreflecttheconstitutionalgoalsandideals.TheSupremeCourthasdealtwithprisoners
rightsinanelaboratemannerinSunilBatra(I)v.DelhiAdministration[18]uponawritpetitionunderArticle32
oftheConstitution.Hereitwaslaiddownthatacourtsentencedoesnotdeprivetheprisonerofhisfundamental
rights.TheConstitutionBenchintheSunilBatraCaseslaiddownimportantprinciplesregardingthestatusof
theprisoners.TheConstitutionBenchshruggedoffthehandsoffprisondoctrine,upheldthefundamental
rightsoftheprisoners,thoughcircumscribedseverelyseverelybytherealityoflawfulcustody.Thefundamental
rightsdidnotforsaketheprisoners,andthatthepenologicalpurposeofthesentencewasreformatoryeven
thoughdeterrenttoo.[19]FurtheritwasexplainedthattheCourthasacontinuingresponsibilitytoensurethat
theconstitutionalpurposeofdeprivationisnotdefeatedbytheprisonadministration.[20]AtpresenttheCourt
neednotadoptahandsoffattitudeinregardtotheproblemofprisonadministrationinIndia.
TheFundamentalRightsguaranteedundertheConstitutionarenotabsoluteandmanyrestrictionshavebeen
imposedontheirenjoyment.Righttofreedomofpersonisoneofthemostimportantrightsamongthe
7/32
10/16/2016
fundamentalrights.[21]Whenapersonisconvictedorputinprisonhisstatusisdifferentfromanordinary
person.Aprisonercannotclaimallthefundamentalrightsavailabletoanordinaryperson.TheSupremeCourt
ofIndiaandvariousHighCourtsinIndiahavediscussedthescopeinvariousdecisions.Beforediscussingthese
decisionsitisnecessarytoseevariousconstitutionalprovisionswithregardtoprisonersrights.
ThereisnoguaranteeofprisonersrightsassuchintheIndianConstitution.However,certainrightswhichhave
beenapartofPartIIIoftheConstitutionareavailabletoprisonersalsobecauseaprisonerremainsaperson
insideaprison.[22]TherighttopersonallibertyhasnowbeengivenverywideinterpretationbytheSupreme
Court.[23]Thisrightisavailablenotonlytofreepeoplebutalsotopeoplebehindbars.Therighttospeedy
trial[24],freelegalaid[25],rightagainsttorture,rightagainstinhumantreatmentanddegradingtreatment
accompanyapersontotheprisonalso.
OneoftheimportantprovisionsoftheConstitutionofIndiawhichisgenerallyappliedbythecourtsisArticle
14inwhichtheprincipalofequalityisembedded.Therulethatlikeshouldbetreatedalikeandtheconceptof
reasonableclassificationascontainedinArticle14hasbeenaaveryusefulguideforthecourtstodeterminethe
categoryoftheprisonersandtheirbasisofclassificationindifferentcategories.
Article19oftheConstitutionofIndiaguaranteessixfreedomstothecitizensofIndia.Amongthese,certain
freedomslikefreedomofmovement,freedomtoresideandtosettleandfreedomofprofession,occupation,
tradeorbusinesscannotbeenjoyedbytheprisonersbecauseoftheverynatureofthesefreedomsanddueto
theconditionofincarceration.
Butotherfreedomslikefreedomofspeechandexpression,freedomtobecomememberofanassociationetc.
canbeenjoyedbytheprisonerevenbehindthebarsandhisimprisonmentorsentencehasnothingtodowith
thesefreedoms.Butthesewillbesubjectedtothelimitationofprisonlaws.
Article21oftheConstitutionhasbeenmajorcentrelitigationsofarasprisonersrightsareconcerned.[26]It
embodiestheprincipleofliberty.ThisprovisionhasbeenusedbytheSupremeCourttoprotectcertain
importantrightsoftheprisoners.AfterManekaGandhis[27]case,thisarticlehasbeenusedagainstarbitrary
actionsoftheexecutiveespeciallytheprisonauthorities.Afterthatdecisionithasbeenestablishedthatthere
mustbefairandreasonableprocedureforthedeprivationofthelifeandpersonallibertyoftheindividuals.The
issueofprisonconditionsandenvironmenthasemergedasoneofthepredominantthemeofcorrectional
philosophyraisingquestionsconcerninginmatesrightsandfateofprisonlife.
Earlier,theprisoncommunitywastreatedasaclosedsystemandtherewasnoaccesstooutsidersintheaffairs
oftheprisoners.Theauthoritiesundertheguiseofdisciplinewereabletoinflictanyinjuryupontheinmates.
ThescopeofJudicialReviewagainsttheactsoftheprisonauthoritieswererestricted.TheCourtswerereluctant
tointerfereinthemattersoftheprisonersitwascompletelylefttothediscretionoftheexecutive.Butgradually
achangewasvisible.
RIGHTTOFAIRPROCEDURE
WhenwetracetheoriginofprisonersrightsofIndia,theembryocanbefoundinthecelebratedcaseofA.K.
Gopalanv.StateofMadras.[28]Oneofthemaincontentionsraisedbythepetitionerwasthatthephrase
procedureestablishedbylawascontainedinArticle21oftheConstitutionincludesafairandreasonable
procedureandnotameresemblanceofprocedurebytheStateforthedeprivationoflifeorpersonallibertyof
individuals.
ThemajorityopinioninGopalanwasthatwhenapersonistotallydeprivedofhispersonallibertyundera
procedureestablishedbylaw,thefundamentalrightsincludingtherighttofreedomofmovementarenot
available.Itwasheldthat:
8/32
10/16/2016
Therecannotbeanythingasabsoluteoruncontrolledlibertywhollyfreedfromrestraint,forthatwouldleadto
anarchyanddisorder..Insomecases,restrictionshavetobeplaceduponfreeexerciseofindividualrightsto
safeguardtheinterestofthesociety:ontheotherhand,socialcontrolwhichexistsforpublicgoodhasgottobe
restrained,lestitbemisusedtothedetrimentofindividualrightsandliberties.[29]
AnotherimportantdecisionwasStateofMaharashtrav.PrabakharPandurang.[30]InPandurangtheCourt
heldthatconditionsofdetentioncannotbeextendedtodeprivationofotherfundamentalrightsconsistentwith
thefactofdetention.TherespondentwasdetainedbythegovernmentinthedistrictprisoninBombayinorder
topreventhimfromactinginamannerprejudicialtothedefenceofIndia,publicsafetyandmaintenanceof
publicorder.Whilehewasinsidethejail,hewrotewiththepermissionoftheGovernmentabookinMarathi
underthetitleofAnuchaAntarangawhichmeansInsidetheAtom.Thebookwaspurelyofscientificinterest
anditdidnotcauseanyprejudicetothedefenceofIndia,publicsafetyororder.Thedetenuappliedtothe
GovernmentandtheSuperintendentforthepermissiontosendthemanuscriptoutofthejailforpublicationbut
bothwererejected.OnapproachingtheHighCourt,itwasheldthattherewerenorulesprohibitingadetenu
fromsendingabookoutsidethejailwithaviewtogetitpublished.HighCourtheldthatthecivilrightsandthe
libertiesofacitizenwereinnowaycurbedbytheorderofdetentionandthatitwasalwaysopentothedetenue
tocarryonhisactivitieswithintheconditionsgoverninghisdetention.[31]Itfurtherheldthattherewereno
rulesprohibitingadetenuefromsendingabookoutsidethejailwithaviewtogetitpublished.[32]Supreme
CourtalsoaffirmedthedecisionoftheHighCourtandheldthatthesaidconditionsregulatingtherestrictions
onthepersonallibertyofadetenuearenotprivilegesconferredonhimbutaretheconditionssubjecttowhich
hislibertycanberestricted.[33]
InD.B.M.Patnaikv.StateofAndhraPradesh[34],theSupremeCourtcategoricallyassertedthatconvictsare
notbythemerereasonoftheirdetention,denudedofallthefundamentalrightstheypossess.InPatnaik,the
petitionerswereundergoingtheirsentencesintheCentralJail,Vishakapatnam.Theywerealsoatthesametime
prisonersundertrialinthecelebratedParvathipuramNaxaliteConspiracyCase.[35]Thepetitionwasfiledfor
theremovalofthepoliceguardspostedaroundtheJailanddismantlinglivewireselectricalmechanismfixed
ontopofthejailwall.[36]TheSupremeCourtheldthattherightofpersonallibertyandsomeofthe
fundamentalfreedomsarenottobetotallydeniedtoaconvictduringtheperiodofincarceration.Heretherewas
nodeprivationofanyoftheirfundamentalrightsbythepostingofthepoliceguardsimmediatelyoutsidethe
jail.Thepolicemenwholiveonthevacantjaillandarenotshowntohaveanyaccesstothejailwhichis
enclosedbyhighwalls.Butthecourtlaiddowncertainimportantaspectsregardingprisonersrights.
Chandrachud,J.held:
Thesecurityofonespersonagainstanarbitraryencroachmentbythepoliceisbasictoafreesocietyand
prisonerscannotbethrowntothemercyofpolicemenasifitwereapartofanunwrittenlawofcrimes.Such
intrusionsareagainsttheveryessenceofaschemeoforderedliberty.[37]
Thepetitionersalsoquestionedtheinstallationofhighvoltageswiresinstalledonthetopofthecompoundwall.
RegardingthistheCourtheldthattheprisonerscannotcomplainoftheinstallationofthelivewiremechanism
withwhichtheyarelikelytocomeintocontactonlyiftheyattempttoescapefromtheprison.Accordingtothe
Court,therewasnopossibilityofthepetitionerscomingintopursuitoftheirdailychores.Whateverbethe
natureandextentofthepetitionersfundamentalrighttolifeandpersonalliberty,theyhavenofundamental
freedomtoescapefromlawfulcustody.[38]
HeretheCourthasfoundthattherightsclaimedbytheprisonersasfundamentalmaynotreadilyfitinthe
classicalmouldoffundamentalfreedoms.
Thus,therewasamovementawayfromGopalanin1966and1974concerningtheavailabilityoffundamental
rightstoprisoners.EventhoughinGopalan,theCourtsdidnotinterfereinthemattersofdetentiontherewasa
gradualchangevisible.Butinreality,thecourtsdidnotintheiractualdecisionsprovidemuchrelieftothe
prisoners.EventheviolationofprocedureestablishedbylawinthePrisonsActorJailManualsdidnotentitle
theprisonerstoanyrelief.
9/32
10/16/2016
InPatanik[39]theCourtwasunabletofind,fromtheaffidavitandcounteraffidavits,satisfactoryproofthatthe
conditionsinVishakhapatnamJailweresuch,thatwouldinvolveviolationofrighttolifeandlibertyguaranteed
byArticle21oftheIndianConstitution.Thefactthatnaxaliteprisonershadresortedtomarathonhunger
strikeswasjudiciallynoticedtheidyllicdescriptionofprisonconditionsgivenbytheprisonauthoritieswasnot
takenatfacevalue.TheCourtnoticedthatthereweresubtleformsofpunishmenttoconvictsandundertrial
prisonersaresubjectedto.Thesebarbarousrelicsofabygoneeraoffendedtheletterandspiritofthe
Constitution.[40]
PERSONALLIBERTY
TheSupremeCourthadtoconsidertherelationshipofarticle19and21withtheprisonersrightsinKharak
Singhv.StateofU.P.[41]TheSupremeCourtcontrastedArticle21oftheConstitutionwiththeFourthand
FourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution.[42]ThewordlibertyinArticle21isqualifiedby
thewordpersonal.ThewordpersonallibertyinArticle21isusedasacompendioustermtoincludewithin
itselfallvarietiesofrightswhichgotomakethepersonallibertiesofmenotherthanthosewithinseveralclasses
ofArticle19(1).
AccordingtoSubbaRao,J.whodissentedinKharakSingh,itisnotcorrecttosaythattheexpressionpersonal
libertyinArticle21excludestheattributesoffreedomspecifiedinArticle19.[43]Hebroughtoutthe
relationshipbetweenArticles19and21observingthatthefundamentalrightandlibertyhavemanyattributes
andsomeofthemalonearefoundinArticle19.ApersonsfundamentalrightsunderArticle21maybe
infringedonlyunderlawandthatlawmustsatisfythetestlaiddowninArticle19.ItistruethatinArticle21
thewordlibertyisqualifiedbythepersonalbutthisqualificationisemployedinordertoavoidoverlapping
betweenthoseincidentsoflibertywhicharementionedinArticle21.Anunauthorisedintrusionintoapersons
homeandthedisturbancecausedtohimistheviolationofthepersonallibertyoftheindividual.
ManekaGandhiv.UnionofIndia[44]wastheturningpointinthehumanrightsjurisprudence,especiallyin
personalliberty.ManekaGandhiacceptedthedissentingopinionofSubbaRaoinKharakSingh.Theexpression
personallibertyinArticle21isofthewidestamplitudeandcoverseveryoneoftherightswhichconstitutes
personallibertyofman.Thepersonallibertieshavebeenraisedtothestatusofdistinctlibertiesandtheyhave
beenraisedtothestatusofdistinctfundamentalrightsandgivenadditionalprotectionunderArticle19.
THEEXTENTOFJUDICIALINTERFERENCE
TheremayariseoccasionswhichcompeltheprisonerstoapproachtheCourtsfortheredressaloftheir
grievances.WhetheraCourtcaninterferewiththetreatmentofprisonersbyjailauthoritiesandprescribefair
procedure?Whatistheremedyavailabletotheconvictedpersonsiftheirfundamentalrightsareencroached
uponbytheactsofprisonauthorities?TheSupremeCourtinCharlesShobrajv.Superintendent,CentralJail,
Tihar[45]analysedindetailtheextentofjudicialinterference.TheSupremeCourtreiteratednotonlythepowers
oftheCourtstoissuethewritsbutalsohighlightedtheirdutyandauthoritytoseethatthejudicialwarrantwas
notmisused.[46]Theprisonersshouldgettheprotectionofthefundamentalrightsguaranteedbythe
Constitutiontothecitizensagainstanyarbitraryanddiscriminatorytreatmentbytheprisonauthorities.[47]
InCharlesShobrajtheSupremeCourtheldthattheprisonauthoritiesarejustifiedinclassifyingprisoners
betweendangerousandordinaryprisoners.WhiledismissingthepetitionstheCourtheldthatinthepresentcase
thepetitionerisnotundersolitaryconfinement.Adistinctionbetweenaconvictandanundertrialis
reasonable.
ThoughthepleaofthepetitionerwasnotallowedtheCourtmadesomenoteworthyobservationsasregardthe
rolesofArticles19and21inaprisonsetting.KrishnaIyer,J.oftheSupremeCourtobserved:
10/32
10/16/2016
Confrontedwithcruelconditionsofconfinement,thecourthasanexpandedrole.True,therighttolifeismore
thanmereanimalexistence,orvegetablesubstance.True,theworthofthehumanpersonandthedignityand
divinityofeveryindividualinformArticles19and21eveninanprisonsetting.Trueconstitutionalprovisions
andmunicipallawsmustbeinterpretedinthelightofthenormativelawsofnations,whereverpossibleanda
prisonerdoesnotforfeithisPartIIIrights.[48]
Consideringthequestionofrightsavailabletotheprisoners,theSupremeCourthasrightlyaffirmedthatthe
imprisonmentdoesnotspellfarewelltothefundamentalrights,thoughtheCourtsmayrefusetoallowinthefull
fundamentalrightsenjoyedbyfreecitizens.TheCourtmadeitclearthattheclaimsofprisonersofprisoners
againstcruelandunusualpunishmentsneednotnecessarilydependfortheirsoundnessuponspecific
constitutionalprovisionsprohibitingsuchtreatment.[49]
Thus,itisevidentthatCharlesShobrajisalandmarkdecisionintheprisonersrightsjurisprudence.Through
thiscasetheCourtwidenedthescopeofjudicialinterferenceintheadministrationofprisons.
Anotheropportunityforadvancinghumanrightsinthefieldofcriminaljurisprudencecameupbeforethe
SupremeCourtinFrancisCoralieMullinv.TheAdministrator,UnionTerritoryofDelhi.[50]Therighttolife
protectedunderArticle21isnotconfinedmerelytotherighttoofphysicalexistencebutitalsoincludeswithin
itsbroadmatrixtherighttouseofeveryfacultyorlimbthroughwhichlifeisenjoyedasalsotherighttolive
withbasichumandignity.[51]
TheSupremeCourtobservedthatasanecessarycomponentoftherighttolife,theprisonerordetenuewouldbe
entitledtohaveinterviewswiththemembersofhisfamilyandfriendsandnoprisonregulationorprocedurelaid
downbyprisonregulatingtherighttohaveinterviewswithfamilymembersandfriendscanbeupheldas
constitutionallyvalidunderArticle21and24,unlessitisreasonable,fairandjust.[52]JusticeBhagwatifurther
heldthat:
Thesameconsequencewouldfollowevenifinthisproblemisconsideredfromthepointofviewoftherightto
personallibertyenshrinedinArticle21,fortherighttohaveinterviewswithmembersofthefamilyandfriends
isclearlypartofpersonallibertyguaranteedunderthisarticle.Theexpressionpersonallibertyoccurringin
Article21isofthewidestamplitudeanditincludestherighttosocialisewithfamilyandfriendssubject,of
course,toanyvalidregulationsandunderArticles14and21,suchprisonregulationsmustbereasonableand
nonarbitrary.Ifanyprisonregulationorprocedurelaiddownbyitregulatingtherighttohaveinterviewswith
membersoffamilyandfriendsisarbitraryorunreasonable,invalidasbeingviolativeofArticle14and21.[53]
Thestatecannot,bylaworotherwise,depriveanypersonoftherighttolivewithbasichumandignity.Torture
orcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishmentwhichtrenchesuponhumandignitywouldbe
impermissibleundertheConstitution.Thus,theSupremeCourtelevatedimmunityagainsttortureordegrading
treatmentorpunishmenttothestatusofthefundamentalrightunderArticle21,thoughitisnotspecifically
enumeratedasafundamentalrightintheConstitution.[54]
TheSupremeCourtwasnotprejudicedbythefactthatthepetitionerwasnotacitizenofIndia.humanrightsare
universalandtheSupremeCourtsendorsementofthispropositionismuchinevidenceinthisdecision.The
extensionoftheunderstandingoflifetoincludehumandignityisanunmistakablereflectionoftheCourts
sensitivitytothepervasiveaspectofhumanrights.Thedepthofunderstandingwentbeyondthewordstothe
substance,andisnowaninalienablepartofIndianconstitutionallaw.
OTHERHUMANRIGHTSOFPRISONERS
TheSupremeCourtupheldtherightofaprisonerinthecaseofStateofMaharshtrav.Pandurang[55]tohave
hisworkentitledInsidertheAtompublished,solongasitdidnotviolateprisondiscipline.Themartyrdomof
Gopalan[56]andresurrectionbyCooper[57]pavedthewayforManeka[58],wherethepotentinvocationofthe
restofPartIII,evenafteroneoftherightswasvalidlyputoutofaction,wasaffirmedinthesamebreath.Sothe
11/32
10/16/2016
Lawisthatforaprisonerallfundamentalrightsareenforceable,thoughrestrictedbythefactofimprisonment.
Theomensarehopefulforimprisonedhumans,becausetheycanenchantinglyinvokeManeka[59]and,inits
wake,Arts.14,19,and21torepelthedeadeningimpactofunconscionableincarceratoryinflictionsbasedon
someluridlegislativetextoruntestedtradition.
TheSunilBatraCases
Anawarenessaboutprisonersrightswascreatedamongthepeoplebytheabovementioneddecisions.Butno
substantialreformhadbeenmadebytheCentralGovernmentortheStateGovernmentsexcepttheappointment
ofsomePrisonReformCommittees.[60]Inspiteofthis,theSupremeCourthastakeninitiativeinorderto
humanisejailadministrationtosomeextent.ThetwoSunilBatracasesaresignificantdecisionstothisdirection.
[61]
ThepetitioninSunilBatra(I)wasfiledbytwoinmatesconfinedintheTiharJailchallengingthelegalvalidity
ofSection30[62]and56[63]ofthePrisonsAct.SunilBatra,aconvictundersentenceofdeathchallengedhis
solitaryconfinement.CharlesSobhraj,aFrenchnationalandthenanundertrialprisonerchallengedtheaction
oftheSuperintendentofJailputtinghiminbarfettersforanunusuallylongperiodcommencingfromthedate
ofincarceration.Suchagruesomeandhairraisingpicturewaspaintedoutthatatsomestageofthehearing,
ChiefJusticeM.H,Beg,V.R.KrishnaIyer,J.andP.S.Kailasam,J.whowerethejudgeshearingthecase
visitedtheCentralJail,Tihar.
ThepetitionwasdismissedbytheCourt.ButthroughvariousinterimorderstheCourthasguaranteedafair
treatmenttothepetitionerinsidetheprison.TheSupremeCourtsaid:
Convictsarenotwhollydenudedoftheirfundamentalrights.Noironcurtaincanbedrawnbetweenthe
prisonerandtheConstitution.Prisonersareentitledtoallconstitutionalrightsunlessthelibertyhasbeen
constitutionallycurtailed.[64]
HeretheSupremeCourtestablishedthatconvictsarenotmerelybyreasonofconvictiondenudedofallthe
fundamentalrightswhichtheyotherwisepossess.Theconvictiondeprivestheprisonerofthefundamental
freedomsliketherighttomovefreelythroughouttheterritoryofIndiaandtherighttopracticeaprofession.
InSunilBatra(II)arisingoutofaletterwrittenbySunilBatratooneofthejudgesoftheSupremeCourt
allegingthatawardeninTiharJailhadcausedbleedinginjurytoaconvictbynameofPremChandbyforcinga
stickintohisanus,theCourtliberalisedtheproceduralrigiditiesofthewritofhabeascorpusandemployedthe
writ,followingtheAmericancasesfortheoversightofstatepenalmachineryandforthecondemnationofthe
brutalitiesandtorturesinflictedontheprisoners.Onthebasisofthis,theSupremeCourttreatedBatrasletteras
apetitionforhabeascorpusandemployedthewrittotheLieutenantGovernorofDelhiandtheSuperintendent
ofCentralJailorderingthatPremChandshouldnotbesubjectedtotortureandwoundonhispersonshould
receivepropermedicalattention.
InthiscaseJusticeKrishnaIyeropenlyacknowledgedtheactivistpolicymakingroleofthejudicialprocess,
particularlyinviewofthelegislativelaxity,inthehumanisationoftheprisonsystemandobservedthus:
Ofcourse,newlegislationisthebestsolution,butwhenlawmakerstakefartoolongforsocialpatienceto
suffer,asinthiscaseofprisonreform,courtshavetomakedowithinterpretationandcarveonstonereadyat
handnotwaitforfarawaymarble.[65]
Thejudgegaveanumberofguidelinesonthehumanistreformsofthepenalprocessandtheprison
administration.
TheSupremeCourthasdirectedthatthetreatmentofprisonersmustbecommensuratewithhissentenceand
satisfythetestsofArticles14,19and21oftheConstitution.Itexpandedthescopeofthewritofhabeascorpus
12/32
10/16/2016
byrecognisingtherightofprisonertoinvoketherightagainstprisonexcessesinflicteduponhimoronaco
prisoner.Further,theCourtgavemanydirectionstoimprovetheprisonadministration.
Thecourtheldthatinterferenceisnecessaryandwelcometocheckarbitraryactionsofjailauthorities.Habeas
Corpusandadministrativemeasuresarethepillarsofprisonersrights.[66]Theprisonerscaninvokethe
attentionoftheCourtsatappropriatetimes.Italsoreiteratedthatthepostconvictionvisitsbythejudgestothe
prisonswouldbearmanybeneficialresults.[67]Theyreducethepossibilityofthevindictiveattitudeonpartof
theprisonauthoritiesandhelptheprisonertogetsuitabletreatment.Thevisitsgiveanopportunitytothejudges
toobservetheimpactandtheimplementationoftheCourtsdirectives.TheCourtexpresslystatethatmere
convictiondoesnotmakeapersonanonperson.Whileimprisonmentwoulddeprivetheconvictofhispersonal
liberty,hisfundamentalrightdidnototherwisestandabrogated.
InSunilBatra,theSupremeCourtobserved,relyingonAmericanandEnglishdecisions,thatthescopeofthe
writofhabeauscorpusisverywideanditscircumferencehasbecomewiderfromtimetotimetoachieveits
objectives,i.e.,theprotectionofindividualsagainsterosionoftherighttobefreefromwrongfulrestrainton
theirliberty.[68]
Thecaseisasymptom,asymbolandasignpostvisvishumanrightsinprisonsituations.Thepetitionerdoes
notseekthereleaseoftheprisonerbecausealifesentencekeepshiminconfinement.Theresumeoffactsbrings
intofocusthebasicsofprisonersrightsandhelpstheCourtforgeremedialdirectivessoastoharmonisethe
expandinghabeausjurisprudencewithdawninghorizonsofhumanrightsandenlightenedmeasuresofprison
disciplinebeyondtheconventionalblinkershavestartedtoexaminethemannerinwhichaninmateisheldor
treatedduringtheperiodofhissentence.
Whereinjusticevergingonhumanity,emergedfromhackinghumanrightsguaranteedinPartIIIandthevictim
beseechestheCourttointerveneandrelievetheCourtwillbeafunctionalfutilityasaConstitutional
instrumentalityifitsgunsdonotgointoactionuntilthewrongisrighted.TheCourtisnotadistinctabstraction
omnipotentinbooksbutanactivistinstitutionwhichisthecinosureofthepublichope.[69]
RighttoSpeedyTrial
Thisrightfirstcameupinaseriesofcasesinvolvingundertrials[70],whowereinjailforaperiodlongerthan
themaximumsentencethatcouldbeimposedonconviction.InHussainaraKhatoon(I)v.HomeSecretary,
Bihar[71]itwasheldthataprocedurewhichkeepssuchlargenumbersofpeoplebehindbarswithouttrialso
longcannotpossiblyberegardedasreasonable,justorfairsoastobeinconformitywiththerequirementsof
Article21.Bhagwati,J.,observedthatalthoughtherighttospeedytrialisnotspecificallymentionedasa
fundamentalright,itisimplicitinthebroadsweepandcontentofArticle21.InHussainara(II)[72]theCourt
reemphasisedtheexpeditiousreviewforwithdrawalofcasesagainstundertrialsformorethantwoyears.In
Hussainara(III)[73],theCourtreiteratedthattheinvestigationmustbecompletedwithinatimebound
programmesinrespectofundertrialsandgavespecificorderstobefollowedforquickdisposalofcasesof
undertrials.InHussainara(IV)[74],incontinuationofHussainara(I)andHussainara(III),theCourtconsidered
theaffidavitsfiledinresponsetoitsearlierordersandpassedfurtherdirections.Dissatisfiedwiththe
compliancetoitsearlierdirection,theCourtorderedreleaseofundertrialsheldforperiodsmorethanthe
maximumtermimposableuponthemonconviction.Itwasheldthatcontinuanceofsuchdetentionisclearly
illegalandinviolationofthefundamentalrightunderArticle21.TheCourtwentonestepfurtherandafter
makingareferencetotheHoskot[75]case,recognisedtherighttofreelegalservicesforthepoorandtheneedy
asanessentialingredientofreasonable,fairandjustprocedureimplicitintheguaranteeofArticle21,and
directedtheStatetoprovidealawyeratitsowncostformakingabailapplicationtoanundertrial:
i)chargedwithbailableoffencesonthenextremanddate,or
ii)heldfornonbailableoffencesafterhavingspenthalfthetermofmaximumsentenceimposableonhim
wereheconvicted.
13/32
10/16/2016
InHussainara(V)[76],theCourtconsideredtheextenttowhichdirectionsinHussainara(IV)hadbeen
compliedwith,passedfurtherdirectionsandgavemoretimewherenecessary.InHussainara(VI)[77],inthe
pendingcasestoensurespeedytrial,theCourtrequestedfurtherdetailsfromtheHighCourtanddirectedthe
StateGovernmenttofileanaffidavitinreply.ThesumandsubstanceofthedecisionsintheHussainaracasesis
therecognitionoftherighttospeedytrial,andtherighttolegalaidservicesunderArticle21.Itwaspointedout
thatthepresentlegalandjudicialsystemdeniedjusticetothepoorandtheneedybecauseofthesystemofbail
withitsmisdirectedemphasisinfurnishingfinancialsecurityoperatedadverselyagainsttheaccused.
InKadraPahadiyav.StateofBihar[78],thecourtgavedirectionsforthereleaseofundertrialslanguishingin
jailforalongtime,withouttheircasehavingcometoCourt.InthisjudgmenttheCourtfirmlyrecognisedthe
righttospeedytrialasaFundamentalRight.
SinceHussainara,inalargenumberofcases[79]involvingaccusedchargedwithseriousandnonserious
offences,mentallyretardedpersonsandothershavecomeupbeforetheCourtandithasheldthatallpersons
awaitingtrialforlongcanapproachtheSupremeCourtwhichwillgivenecessarydirectionsinthematter[80].
Butwhetheracasedeservessuchdirectionswilldependonanumberoffactorsrelevantforthedeterminationof
thefactiftherehasbeenanyunfairnessintheadministrationofcriminaljustice,i.e.,whereinspiteofmost
effectivestepsonthepartoftheStatebecauseofthecomplexnatureofacasetrialcouldnotbeheld
expeditiouslytheCourtmaynotgiveanyreliefbeyondaskingtheStatethatthetrialshouldbestartedsoonand
proceededfromdaytoday.Therighttospeedytrialencompassesallthestages,namelythestageof
investigation,injury,trial,appeal,revisionandretrial.[81]
TheIndianSupremeCourthasestablishedthepropositionthattherighttospeedytrialisaFundamentalRight
implicitinArticle21.TheCourtshavereasonedthatnoprocedurecanbefairunlessitensuresaspeedy
determinationoftheguiltoftheaccused.Aninordinatelylongperiodofdelayisitselfaprejudicetotheaccused
andentitleshimtobedischarged,intheabsenceofsatisfactoryexplanationforthedelay[82].Butwherethe
delayisduetothenatureoftheallegations,theCourtmaynotquashtheproceedingsbutonlygivedirectionsfor
expeditingthetrial[83].
TheSupremeCourthas,aftersomecontroversy,acceptedtheAmericanprinciplethat,intheabsenceofany
statutoryprovisiontothateffect,speedytrialdoesnotrequirethatthetrialmustbecompletedwithinaspecified
periodoftime[84].InRaghubirSinghv.StateofBihar[85],theCourtimplementedtheguidelinesdevelopedin
theAmericanSupremeCourt,namelythatindeterminingwhetheranydelayhasresultedinadenialofspeedy
trial,theCourtshouldweighthefollowingfactors:
a)Lengthofthedelay
b)Reasonsforthedelay
c)Assertionoftheguaranteebytheaccused
d)Prejudicetothedefendant[86].
TheCourtwouldnot,thus,quashproceedingswherethedelayhasbeencausedbytheconductoftheaccused
himself[87]orwheretheseriousnessoftheoffencewhichunderminestheeconomyofthenationcallsfora
prolongedinvestigation[88].
ThereisnofixedstandardastothequantumofdelaywhichwouldinducetheCourttodischargetheaccusedon
thegroundofdenialoftherighttospeedytrial.Itwoulddependuponthecircumstancesofeachcase,readinthe
lightoftheprincipleslaiddownbytheCourt(theprinciplesmentionedabove)[89].
Therighttospeedytrialhasbeenextendedtotheinvestigationofoffencesagainstchildoffendersaswell[90].
Inthesamecase,theCourtheldthatoncetherighttospeedytrialbecomesaFundamentalRight,itbecomesthe
constitutionalobligationoftheCourttogiveappropriatedirectionstoenforcethisright,forexample,todirecta
Magistratetoconsiderwhetheranyundertrialprisoner,whohasbeeninjailformorethan12monthsafterhis
14/32
10/16/2016
commitmenttotheCourtofSession,becausethetrialhasnotbeencompleted.Insteadofquashingthe
prosecution,theCourtmaygrantbailwherethetrialisnotlikelytobeconcludedearly,andthereisno
substantialriskoftheaccusedsabsconding[91].
InMadhuMehtav.UnionofIndia[92]theCourttookanotherperspectiveonthisright,linkingitwiththeright
againstcruelandunusualpunishment.TheCourtinthatcasearguedthatacondemnedpersonhastosuffer
mentaltorture,ifnotphysicaltorturewhileundergoingimprisonment.Inanotherjudgment,theCourt
distinguishedbetweenafairtrialandaspeedytrial.ToquotetheCourt:
WhileaspeedytrialisanimpliedingredientofafairtrialguaranteedbyArticle21,theconverseisnot
necessarilytrue.Adelayedtrialisnotnecessarilyanunfairtrial.Whetheraconvictionshouldbequashedonthe
groundofdelayedtrialdependsuponthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.Iftheaccusedisfoundtohave
beenprejudicedintheconductofhisdefenceanditcouldbesaidthattheaccusedhadthusbeendeniedan
opportunitytodefendhimself,theconvictionwouldcertainlyhavetogo.[93]
TheCourthasalsointerferedincaseswherethecasedidnotinvolveanundertrial.ForexampleinGuinv.
Grindlays[94],theCourtheldthatevenifanacquittalisheldtobeunjustified,theCourtmaysetasideanorder
forretrialwhere,thenatureoftheoffencebeingaminorone,5yearshavepassedsincetheorderofacquittal.
RightagainstCruelandUnusualPunishment
AnotheraspectofcriminaljurisprudencedevelopedbytheCourtistheRightagainstCruelandUnusual
Punishment.AprisonerisentitledtoallhisFundamentalRightsunlesshislibertyhasbeenconstitutionally
curtailed.Therefore,anyimpositionofamajorpunishmentwithintheprisonsystemisconditionaluponthe
observanceoftheproceduralsafeguardsenshrinedinArticle21,eventhoughheisnotinapositiontoenjoythe
fullpanoplyofFundamentalRightsduetotheverynatureoftheregimetowhichheislawfullycommitted.In
SunilBatrav.DelhiAdministration[95],thesolitaryconfinementofaprisoner,whowasawardedthecapital
sentenceforhavingcommittedtheoffenceofmurderunderSection30(2)ofthePrisonsAct,1894,washeldbad
asitwasimposednotasaconsequenceoftheviolationoftheprisondisciplinebutonthegroundthatthe
prisonerwasoneundersentenceofdeath.Desai,J.,pointedoutthattheconvictionofapersonforacrimedid
notreducehimtoanonpersonvulnerabletomajorpunishmentsimposedbythejailauthoritieswithout
observanceofproceduralsafeguards.Itwasalsoheldthatbarfetters,toaveryconsiderable,imposedunder
Section56ofthePrisonsAct,1894,curtailifnotwhollydeprive,locomotionwhichisoneofthefacetsof
personallibertyandsuchactioncanonlybejustifiedinthecircumstancesrelatabletothecharacterofthe
prisonerandhissafecustody[96].However,prisonershavenoFundamentalRighttoescapefromlawful
custody,andhence,thepresenceofarmedguardscausesnointerferencewiththeRighttoPersonalLiberty.So
also,prisonerscannotcomplainoftheinstallationofthelivewiremechanismwithwhichtheyarelikelyto
comeincontactonlyiftheyattempttoescapefromtheprison[97].Also,thedenialofamenitiesortheirpoor
maintenancedonotnecessarilyconstituteanencroachmentontheRighttoPersonalLiberty.Ifaprisoner
demandsthatheshouldberemovedtoawardwithmorerelaxationandresentskeepingconvictcooksorhaving
wardensasjailmatesinhiscell,theSuperintendentofthejailmayjustifiablyturndownsuchrequestsinviewof
theprisonersrecordandpotential.[98]
InseveralcasestheCourthasissuedappropriatedirectionstoprisonsandpoliceauthoritiesforsafeguardingthe
rightsofprisonersandpersonsinpolicelockup,particularlyofwomenandchildrenagainstsexualabuseand
fortheirearlytrials.[99]InKartarSinghv.StateofPunjab[100],thecourtdecidedthatthe3rdDegreeform
ofinterrogationcouldbeconsideredastorture,andwasthereforeviolativeofArticle21.
InAnilYadavv.StateofBihar[101],theSupremeCourtheldthatblindingofundertrialsamountedtoaflagrant
violationofArticle21.TheCourtreachedthesameconclusioninKhatri(III)v.StateofBihar[102].
HandcuffingofUndertrials
15/32
10/16/2016
AnotherinterestingaspectofcriminalrightsjurisprudencewhichhasbeendiscussedbytheSupremeCourtis
thehandcuffingofundertrials.Towhatextentdoesitunderminetheirrighttolifeandpersonalliberty?The
pointwasraisedinSunilGuptav.StateofMadhyaPradesh[103]theCourtruledthatunlessthereare
extenuatingcircumstances,anundertrialshouldnotbehandcuffedwhenbringingthemfromtheprisontothe
courtroom,asthiswouldhumiliatethem,andthereforebeviolativeofArticle21.Evenifthereareextenuating
circumstances,thesecircumstancesshouldbeputdowninpaper[104],andtheCourthasdirectedtheUnionof
Indiatoissueappropriateguidelinesinthisregard[105].
DeathSentence
InJagmohanSinghv.StateofUP[106],theconstitutionalityofimposingthedeathsentencewaschallenged.
TheSupremeCourtheldthatiftheentireprocedureforcriminaltrialundertheCriminalProcedurecodefor
arrivingatthedeathsentenceisvalidthentheimpositionofthedeathsentenceinaccordancewiththeprocedure
establishedbylawcannotbesaidtobeunconsitutional.InBachanSinghv.StateofPunjab[107],itwasargued
thattheSupremeCourtinMenakaGandhiscasehasgivenanewinterpretativedimensiontotheprovisionsof
Articles14,19&21,andtheirinterrelationineverylawofpunitivedetentionbothinitsproceduraland
substantiveaspectsmustpassthetestofallthreearticles.ThisargumentwasnotacceptedbytheCourt(4:1).It
washeldthatArticle19,unlikeArticle21,doesnotdealwiththerighttolifeandpersonallibertyandisnot
applicableforjudgingtheconstitutionalityoftheprovisionsofSection302,IPC.Theconditionprecedentfor
theapplicabilityofArticle19isthattheactivitywhichtheimpugnedlawprohibitsandpenalisesmustbewithin
thepurviewandprotectionofArticle19(1).TocommitacrimeisnotanactivityguaranteedbyArticle19(1).As
regardsArticle21,itwasrecognisedthatinArticle21thefoundingfathersrecognisedtherightoftheStateto
depriveapersonofhislifeorpersonallibertyinaccordancewithfair,justandreasonableprocedureestablished
byvalidlaw,andthereareseveralotherindicationsintheConstitutionwhichshowthattheConstitutionmakers
werefullycognizantoftheexistenceofdeathpenalty,suchasEntries1and2inListII,Article72(1)(c),Article
161andArticle34.Thus,itwasobservedthatthedeathpenaltyeitherperseorbecauseofitsexecutionby
hangingbyropedoesnotconstitutecruelandunusualpunishment[108].InTVVatheeswaranv.StateofTamil
Nadu[109],itwasheldthatdelayexceedingtwoyearsintheexecutionofdeathsentenceentitlesaconvicttoget
itcommutedtolifeimprisonment.ButitwasoverruledinSherSinghv.StateofPunjab[110]thatnosuchlimit
couldbefixedwithregardtothefactsofeverycase.
Finally,aconstitutionalbenchoftheSupremeCourtinTrivenibenv.StateofGujarat[111],hasexpressly
overruledVatheeswaranandheldthatit:
mayconsiderthequestionofinordinatedelayinthelightofallcircumstancesofthecasetodecidewhetherthe
executionofdeathsentenceshouldbecarriedoutorshouldbealteredintoimprisonmentforlife.
Incalculatingdelaytimetakeninthedisposalofmercypetitionsisalsotakenintoaccount.Twoyearsdelayin
suchdisposalhasbeenfoundtobeenoughtoconvertdeathsentenceintolifeimprisonment.[112]
RighttoLegalAid
Legalaid,asapipelinetocarrytothecourtthebreachesofprisonersbasicrights,isaradicalhumanist
concomitantoftheruleofprisonlaw.Art.39AisaninterpretativetoolforArt.21oftheConstitution.Partial
statutoryimplementationofthemandateisfoundinS.304oftheCr.P.C.,whichprovidesforlegalaidtothe
accusedinothersituations.CourtscannotbeinertinthefaceofArts.21and39AoftheConstitution.Ifa
prisonersentencedtoimprisonmentisvirtuallyunabletoexercisehisconstitutionalandstatutoryrightof
appeal,forwantoflegalassistance,itiswithintheinherentpowersoftheSupremeCourtunderArt.142read
withArts.21and39AoftheConstitutionpowertoassigncounselforsuchanimprisonedindividual.Thisisa
necessaryincidentoftherightofappealconferredbytheCr.P.CandallowedbyArt.136oftheConstitution.
TheinferenceisinevitablethatthisisthedutyoftheState,andnotanactofgovernmentcharity.Furthermore,
16/32
10/16/2016
inordertoprovideanadequateopportunitytoanaccusedconvictedofacrimetogoinappealagainstthe
sentencethefollowingfacilitiesmaybegivenbytheconcernedauthorities:
(i)Courtsshouldfurnishafreetranscriptofthejudgementwhensentencinganaccusedtoimprisonment.
(ii)Intheeventofanysuchcopybeingsenttothejailauthoritiesfordeliverytotheprisonerbytheappellate,
revisionalorothercourttheofficialconcernedshouldensureitisdeliveredtotheaccused.
(iii)Wheretheprisonerseekstofileanappealorrevision,everyfacilityfortheexerciseofthatrightshouldbe
madeavailablebythejailadministration.
(iv)Wheretheprisonerisdisabledfromengagingalawyeronreasonablegrounds,suchasindigenceor
incommunicadosituation,theCourtshould,ifthecircumstancesofthecase,thegravityofthesentence,andthe
endsofjusticesorequire,assigncompetentcounselfortheprisonersdefence,providedthepartydoesnotobject
tosuchalawyer.
TheRighttofreelegalaidatthecostoftheStatetoanaccusedwhocannotaffordlegalservicesforreasonsof
poverty,indigenceorincommunicadosituationispartoffair,justandreasonableprocedureunderArticle21.
Notonlythat,thetrialcourtisunderanobligationtotelltheaccusedwhocannotaffordlegalrepresentationthat
heisentitledtoberepresentedbyalawyeratthecostoftheState.Incaseanaccusedisnottoldofthisrightand
thereforeheremainsunrepresentedbyalawyer,histrialisvitiatedbyconstitutionalinfirmityandany
convictionasaresultofsuchtrialisliabletobesetaside.ItwasheldinRanchodv.StateofGujarat[113]that
adequatecareshouldbetakeninprovidingcompetentlawyersforlegalaid.
ThefirsttimethisRightwasdiscussedindepthwasinthecaseofKhatri(II)v.StateofBihar[114]TheCourt
heldthattheStateisconstitutionallyboundtoprovidefreelegalaidtoanaccused,notonlyatthestageoftrial,
butalsowhentheyarefirstproducedbeforethemagistrateorremandedfromtimetotime.Therighttofree
legalservicesisanessentialofreasonable,freeandjustprocedureforapersonaccusedofanoffence.TheState
cannotavoidthisobligationbypleadingfinancialoradministrativeinabilityorthatnoneoftheprisonersasked
forlegalaid.TheMagistrateorSessionsjudgeisunderanobligationtoinformtheaccusedofhisrighttolegal
aidatthecostoftheState.However,thereisanexceptiontothisrule,inthecaseofoffencessuchaseconomic
offencesoroffencesagainstlawprohibitingprostitutionorchildabuse,wheresocialjusticemayrequirethat
freelegalservicesneednotbeprovidedbytheState.
AnotherimportantcaseinvolvingthisrightisSukDasv.UnionTerritoryofArunachalPradesh[115].Inthis
case,theprinciplesinKhatri(II)wereagainrestated,andreemphasised.Inthiscase,therighttolegalaidwas
elevatedtoaFundamentalRight.ToquotetheJudge:
FreelegalassistanceatStatecostisafundamentalrightofapersonaccusedofanoffencewhichmayinvolve
jeopardytohislifeorpersonallibertyandthisfundamentalrightisimplicitintherequirementofreasonable,
fairandjustprocedureprescribedbyarticle21.[116]
RighttoCompensation
InthefamousBhagalpurBlindingCase[117]thequestionthattheCourtaddressedwaswhethertheCourtwhich
cancertainlyinjunctaStatefromtakinganyactioninviolationofArticle21couldgivecompensationasaform
ofreliefwhentheStatehasalreadyinfringeduponthepersonsrighttolife?
TheCourttakingrecoursetodynamicconstitutionaljurisprudenceheldthatitwasnothelplessandcancertainly
devisenewtoolsandnewremedies,andhence,cancompensate.
ThisviewoftheCourtwasreinforcedinRudulShahv.StateofBihar[118],wheretheCourtawardedRs.
35000/ascompensationforillegaldetentionfor14years.ItpointedoutthatunderArticle32,theSupreme
Courtcouldpassanorderforthepaymentofmoneyinthenatureofcompensationthatwouldbeoneofthe
17/32
10/16/2016
effectivewaysbywhichtheSupremeCourtcouldpreventgrossviolationoftheFundamentalRightsbythe
administrators.
VotingRightsofPrisoners
ThescopeandambitofthevotingrightsofprisonerscameupforconsiderationbeforetheSupremeCourt
recentlyinthecaseofA.C.Pradhanv.UnionofIndia[119].ThecaseinvolvedaPublicInterestLitigationfiled
bytheformerChiefJusticeoftheDelhiHighCourt,RajendarSachar.Thepetitionerchallengedthevalidityof
S.62(5)oftheReepresentationofthePeopleAct,1951,whichprovidesdeenfranchisementofprisonersby
denyingprisonersandotherdetenuesvotingrights.Theimpugnedsectionwaschallengedonthegroundsof
violationArts.14and21oftheConstitution.Itwascontendedbythepetitionerthatthedenialofvotingrightsto
prisonersamountedtounreasonableclassificationasthereexistednointelligibledifferentiabetweenprisoners
andnonprisonersinademocracy.Moreover,itwasarguedthatArt.21includedwithinitsambitarighttovote,
whichwasbeingviolatedbyS.62(5).
TheSupremeCourt,speakingthroughVerma,C.J.,rejectedtheabovecontentions,andupheldthevalidityofthe
impugnedsection.AccordingtotheCourttheprimaryaimandobjectivebehindS.62(5)wastoprevent
criminalisationofpoliticsandtomaintainahealthyandcleandemocracy.Keepingsuchalaudableobjectivein
mind,thedenialofvotingrightstoprisonersamountedtoreasonableclassification,andthereforenotviolative
ofArt.14.AsregardArt.21,theCourtopinedthattheRighttoVoteisnotaFundamentalRightbutmerelya
Statutoryright,andtherefore,Art.21wouldhavenoapplicationintheinstantcase.
Itissubmittedthatthisjudgementisatypicalexampleofwhatailsthejudicialprocessasregardsprisoners
rights.InlightofthesignificantdevelopmentsmadesincethedaysofManekaandSunilBatra,thisdecisionis
highlyretrogressiveandiscontrarytothedynamicofprisonjurisprudence.OnonehandwehaveJustice
KrishnaIyerwaxingeloquentontherightsofprisonersandhowtheycannotbesacrificedatthealtarofpublic
policyandontheotherwehaveJusticeVermawhoconvenientlydiscardstheasitisscantrightsoftheprisoners
forthesocalledbenefitoftheDemocracy.Thisjudgementbyexcludingprisonersfromtheelectionprocesshas
subvertedDemocracy,ratherthanstrengtheningitandhopefullywillgodownintheannalsofIndian
Constitutionaljurisprudence,asanaberration.
TheRightsofWomenPrisoners
Whentheinmatesoftheprisonshappentobewomen,themostvulnerablesectionofsociety,allthetorturesthat
prisonersnormallyfacearemultiplied.Theyfaceunspeakablemodesoftorture.Norissuchtorturelimitedto
beinginflictedonthewomenalone:childrenareoftentorturedinthepresenceoftheirmothers.Theyaresubject
tothehazardsofmolestationandrapenotonlybythecustodialstaffbutalsobymaleinmatesofthejails.The
policemendonotevenspareminorgirlsfromtorture,aswasseenalltounfortunatelyintheMathuraRapecase.
UnderArt.15(3)oftheConstitution,theUnionandStateGovernmentsareempoweredtomakespecial
provisionsinordertosafeguardandprotecttheinterestsofwomen.In1976theConstitutionwasspecially
amendedtomakeitthefundamentaldutyofeverpersontorenounceallpracticeswhicharederogatorytoward
women.[120]WithintheCr.P.Citselfthereareprovisionswhichgrantspecialprotectiontowomen.Someare:
Section51(2)and100oftheCriminalProcedureCodesaythatifawomanistobesearchedbyapoliceofficer
inconnectionwithacrimethatsearchshallbemadebyanotherwomanwithstrictregardtodecency.TheCode
alsolaysdownthatawomanmustbeinterrogatedatherresidence.[121]
Furthermore,theamendmenttoS.375,IPChasprohibitedthearrestofwomenduringthenight.Tofurther
preventtheoccurrenceofcustodialrape,theCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,1983amendedS.376,IPC,
providingdeterrentpunishmentinsuchcases.
18/32
10/16/2016
Unfortunately,asusual,thelawisgoodbutthereisalacunaintheimplementationofthelaw.Womenarestill
subjecttocustodialrape.Theyaremistreated,molestedandrapedinpolicestations,jailsandmilitary
interrogationcentres.
Inresponsetothis,theGovernmentsetuptheNationalExpertCommitteeonWomenPrisonersin1986,under
thechairmanshipofJusticeV.R.KrishnaIyer.Thecommitteewasaskedtostudythehandlingofwomen
offenderstoreviewtheircustodialconditionsandtreatmenttosuggestmeasurestoensurefairandpropercare
tothemandtoimprovethesystem.Initsreport[122],thecommitteereportedvariousmethodsoftorturemeted
outtothewomeninwhichwomenpolicealsoparticipated.Italsosuggestedvariousreforms.Itrecommended
theformulationofanationalpolicyoncustodialjusticetowomen.
Sofaritsrecommendationshaveremainedunimplementedexceptthatthegovernmenthassetupanational
commissiononwomentolookintothevariousmattersrelatingtowomen.Thegovernmentsarenotoriousfor
appointingcommissionstogointotheproblemsandinresponsetotheirrecommendations,appointingyet
anothercommission,payinglittleattentiontotheirrecommendations.
RightsofChildPrisoners
TherightsofchildprisonerscameintoprominencewiththecelebratedSheelaBarsecases.InSheelaBarse(I)
theSupremeCourtlaiddownseveralguidelinesregardingchildreninjails.TheCourtinterpretedArt.39(f)of
theConstitutionwhichprovidesthattheStateshalldirectitspolicytowardssecuringopportunitiesandfacilities
forchildrentodevelopinahealthymanner,andinconditionsoffreedomanddignity,toprovideforspecial
rightsforchildprisoners.
TheCourtdirectedeveryDistrictandSessionsjudgetovisittheDistrictjailatleastonceintwomonths,andin
thecourseoftheirvisittotakeparticularcareofchildprisoners.TheCourtmandatedanobligationuponthe
respectiveHighCourttoensurethatallchildreninjudicialcustodywithinitsjurisdictionmustbeassuredof
acceptablelivingconditions.TheCourtalsodirectedtheStatelegalaidboardstoprovidefacilitiesforlegal
servicestoundertrialchildren.
InSheelaBarse(II)theCourtwasconfrontedwithapublicinterestlitigationaboutphysicallyandmentally
retardedchildrenkeptinjails.TheCourtissueddirectionsspecifyingthatsuchchildrenshouldbelodgedin
protectiveorobservationhomesandinvestigationandtrialsshouldexpedited.Moreover,theCourtdirectedthat
juvenilecourtsshouldbesetup,oneineachdistrictandthecreationofacadreoftrainedmagistratesfordealing
withsuchcases.Thecourtalsomandatedthatinvestigationandtrialsagainstchildrenaccusedofoffences
punishablewithimprisonmentofnotmorethansevenyearstobecompletedwithinthreetosixmonthsfromthe
dateoffilingtheFIR.
ThustheSheelaBarsecasesarealandmarkinIndianprisonjurisprudence,fortheyhavegonealongwayin
recognisingtherightsofchildprisoners.
ChildSlaveryandBondedLabourinJail
PerhapsthemostshockingaspectoftheIndianprisonsystemistheslavesystemoperatinginIndianjails.The
slavesareboys,mostlyundertrialprisoners,betweentenandeighteenyearsofage,employedashelpers.They
cook,washutensils,cleanrooms,fetchwateranddobackbreakinglabourtohelpthemenwhodothesechores.
Theyarewokenupearlyinthemorningtoprepareteaandareallowedtogotosleeponlylateatnightafter
scrubbingthepotsandpans.Theyareconfinedinawardwhichoftenhasnosanitaryfacilities.Theseboysare
keptinjailaslongaspossiblebecausewithoutthemthepersonsemployedtodothemenialdutieswouldhave
notimetorelax.Theyaretakenfromonecourttoanothertobetriedunderonechargeoranother,andkeptin
jailallthewhile.
19/32
10/16/2016
OneaccountofthiskindofsituationwasnarratedintheSunilBatracases[123],inwhichoneboywaspickedup
fromDefenceColonyinNewDelhi,keptinthepolicelockupforthenightandbroughttojailonlyinthe
morning.Inthiswayyoungpersonsareexposedtoviolenceandsufferinginjaillife,andrubshoulderswith
hardenedcriminals.Andallthisispermittedbythelegalsystemitself.
CorruptionandLawlessnessinJails
Indianjailsareclassicexamplesofbreedinggroundsforcrime.Ratherthanpreventcrimeandreformcriminals,
theyseemtoinsteadbreedcrime.Corruptioninjailissowellorganisedandsosystematicthateverythingworks
likeclockworkoncetherequisitepricehasbeenpaid.
JusticeKrishnaIyerhasveryaptlydescribedconditionsinTiharjailinthefollowingwords:
TheTiharprisonisanarenaoftension,trauma,tantrumsandcrimesofviolence,vulgarityandcorruptionand
tocapitall,thereoccursthecontaminationofpretrialaccusedwithhabitualsandinjuriousprisonersof
internationalgangs.Thecrowningpieceisthatthejailofficialsthemselvesareallegedlyinleaguewiththe
criminalsinthecells.Thatis,thereisalargenetworkofcriminals,officialsandnonofficialsinthehouseof
correction.Drugrackets,alcoholism,smuggling,violence,theft,unconstitutionalpunishmentbywayofsolitary
cellularlifeandtransferstootherjailsarenotuncommon.[124]
ThesituationsinTiharjailandincidentsofblindingofundertrialprisonersthathappenedintheBhagalpur
blindingcaseisareflectionofcrimeexplosion,judicialslowmotionandmechanicalpoliceactioncoupledwith
unscientificnugativityandexpensivefutilityoftheprisonadministration.Someofthecausesofdeplorable
conditionsinIndianprisonsare:
1.1.Overcrowdinginjails:ThenormalcapacityofTiharjailforexampleis1273,asagainstthenumber
ofprisoners,whoarebetween2300to2500.
2.2.LackofProperClassificationofPrisoners:Thisisprobablythemostimportantreasonwhyprisons
becomebreedinggroundsofiniquity.Noproperclassificationofdifferentcategoriesofprisoners
dependingonthenatureandtypeofcriminalsismade,suchasforundertrials,females.Habitual
offenders,casualoffenders,juveniles,firstoffendersandpoliticalprisoners.Thisisinfactaclear
violationofArt.14,whichprotectsequalitybeforethelaw.Astheoftquotedmaximgoes:
Treatlikepeoplealike,andunlikepeopledifferently.
1.1.UntrainedStaff:Atpresentmostofthejailstaff,suchasAssistantSuperintendents,Warders,and
guardsareappointedwithoutanytraninginJailadministration.
2.2.LackofSanitation:Finally,sanitaryconditionsinjailsarefarfrombeingsatisfactoryasreportedbya
numberofcommitteesonJailreform.
Ifsomethingisnotdonequickly,thenthesituationwilldegenerateintobeingonewherewewillbesending
morecriminalsoutofjailthancomeoutinthefirstplace.
PrisonsPrescriptionsandProspects
OurConstitutionalculturehasnowcrystallisedinfavourofprisonjusticeandjudicialjurisdiction.Prisonersare
entitledtoallConstitutionalrightsunlesstheirlibertyhasbeenconstitutionallycurtailedbyproceduresthat
satisfyalltherequirementsofdueprocess.Thatistosay,aprisonerdoesnotshedhisbasicconstitutionalrights
attheprisongate.Theinterestofinmatesinfreedomfromimpositionofseriousdisciplineisalibertyentitledto
dueprocessprotection.
20/32
10/16/2016
Thetreatmentofprisonersshouldnotemphasisetheirexclusionfromthecommunitybuttheircontinuingpartin
it.Communityagenciesshouldassistthestaffoftheinstitutioninthetaskofsocialrehabilitationofthe
prisoners.Thereshouldbeinconnectionwitheveryinstitutionofsocialworkerschargedwiththedutyof
maintainingandimprovingalldesirablerelationsofaprisonerwiththefamilyandwithvaluablesocial
agencies.Thefollowingsuggestionsmybetakenintoconsideration:
AssuggestedbyJusticeKrishnaIyer,selectedlawstudentsundertheguidanceofateachernotonlyfor
theirclinicaleducationbutasaPrisonerGrievanceGatheringAgencybeallowedtovisitjailsintheir
respectiveareasandmeettheprisonersanddotheneedfulinthematter.
AGrievancedepositboxshouldbekeptinalljailsandaccesstoitshouldbeallowedtoallprisoners.
DistrictMagistrateandSessionsjudgesshouldvisitjailsperiodicallywithintheirrespectiveCourt
jurisdictionsandaffordeffectiveopportunitiesforventilatinggrievancesandtakingsuitableremedial
measures.
Theinstitutionsshouldutilisealltheremedial,moral,spiritualandotherforcesandformsofassistance
whichareappropriateandavailable.
Communityagenciesbeenlistedtoassistthestaffoftheinstitutioninthetaskofsocialrehabilitationof
theprisoners.
Itwouldbeappropriatetosetupaneffectiveadministrativegrievancecommitteeapartfromprovisions
forjudicialreviewtolookintoprisonersgrievancesfromtimetotime.Theadministrativegrievancesetup
shouldconsistof
1.Internalprograms(formalcomplaintprocedure).
2.Externalprograms(Ombudsman,citizensinvestigationcommittee,mediatorsetc.)
Themodeljailmanualshouldbeamendedandrewrittensoastobeinconsonancewiththebasic
philosophyoftheConstitutionandhumanrights.Thepresentmodeljailmanualisfarfrombeingmodel.
Itisperhapstheproductofpersonnellwhoareunawareoftheconceptofhumanrights.
Thereisanurgentneedforajudicialagencywhosepresence,directorindirectwithintheprisonwalls
willdealwithgrievanceseffectively.Forthisaboardofvisitorswithsufficientpowersbeingconstituted
foreveryjailtolookintothegrievancesoftheprisoners.
Thereshouldbeaprisonombudsmantohearthecomplaintsandgrievancesoftheinmates.Hisprimary
rolewouldbetoconductinvestigationsandmakerecommendationstotheCourt.
Anewchapterofoffencescarryingpunishmentsfornegligentprisonofficialsshouldbeadded.
ThereshouldbeacompulsoryeducationalcourseintheConstitutionandHumanRightsforlaw
enforcementpersonnelandjailauthorities.Theyshouldbemadefamiliarwiththefundamentalrightsof
citizens,theInternationalBillofHumanRightsandotherinstrumentsrelatingtotherightsofthe
prisoners.Asimplifiedversionoftheseinstrumentsshouldbetranslatedintotheregionallanguagesand
madeavailabletothem.
TheaboverecommendationshavebeengleanedfromtheNHRCproposedNewPrisonAct,Reportofthe
NationalExpertCommitteeonWomenPrisonersandotherjudicialaswellasextrajudicialreports.
AsstatedbytheSupremeCourtinMohammedGiasuddinv.StateofAndhraPradesh[125],theroleofjail
authoritiesshouldbethatofdoctorstreatingcriminalsaspatients.TheCourtsobservationsareverypertinentin
thiscontext,whenitsaid:
ProgressivecriminologistsacrosstheworldwillagreethattheGandhiandiagnosisofoffendersaspatientsand
hisconceptionofprisonsashospitalsisthekeytothepathologyofdelinquencyandthetherapeuticroleof
punishment.Thewholemanisahealthyman,andeverymanisborngood.Criminalityisacurabledeviance.
Ourprisonsshouldbecorrectionalhouses,notcruelironachingthesoul.[126]
Thepurposeandjustificationforasentenceofimprisonmentorasimilarmeasureisultimatelytoprotectsociety
againstcrime.Thatistosaytheobjectiveofimprisonmentisnotonlypunitivebutalsoreformative,andtomake
anoffenderanonoffender.[127]Thisendcanbeachievedonlyiftheperiodofimprisonmentisusedtoensure
sofaraspossiblethatuponhireturntosocietytheoffenderisabletoleadalawabidingandselfsupportinglife.
21/32
10/16/2016
Itiswiththeseobjectivesinviewthatin1967theVeraInstituteofJusticeintheUntiedStatesestablishedthe
ManhattanCourtemploymentprogramtorehabilitateprisonersintoaprogramofgrouptherapyand
employmentcounselling.Underthisprogramifanaccusedsucceedsandobtainsajob,hispendingcriminal
chargesaredismissed.ThegoalsofthisinnovativeprogramareeloquentlystatedintheVeraInstituteof
Justicesreportasfollows:
TheManhattanCourtEmploymentprojectaimstostopthedevelopmentofcriminalcareersbyenteringthe
Courtprocessafteranindividualhasbeenarrestedbutbeforehehasbeentried,andgivinghimthekindof
counsellingandopportunityforstartingalegitimatecareerthatheneeds.Thedefendantisofferedthepossibility
thatthechargesagainsthimwillbedismissed,providedheiscooperativeandrespondstocounsellingandjob
placementwithin90days.[128]
Theaboveisanattempttobuildabridgefortheprisonerbetweenthefracturedworldofjailsandtheorderly
worldoflawfulnessandresponsibility.Thedefendantwinsbecausehegetsajobandthechargesagainsthimare
dismissed,andtheStateisrelievedoftheneedtomaintainhiminjail.
InSwedenthecorrectionalworkisdoneinaveryscientificandsystematicway,withahumanitariantouch.The
correctionalworkisregionalisedintofivegeographicalgroupsandintothreespecialproblemgroups.Each
geographicgroupprovidesacentralprisonandarangeofclassificatoryandtreatmentinstitutions,prerelease
centresandhostelsandextrainstitutionalfacilities.Thereare,ineffect,fiveoperativelydistinctcorrectional
systemsinSwedehandlingallproblemsofdetentionpriortotrial,probation,imprisonment,paroleandaftercare
intheirregions.Further,therearethreespecialistgroupsyouth,women,internmentwhichworkinmicro
areas.Thusanelaboratesystematicandstructuredcorrectionalmechanismoperatesinacohesivemanner.A
similarschemecanalsobeexperimentedwithinIndia.
ThefollowingsuggestionstorehabilitatetheprisonerweremadebytheRamachandraRaoCommittee
Report[129]:
1.1.Openjailsshouldbeopenedonawiderscale.
2.2.Provisionsforgrantingparoleshouldbeliberallyinterpretedsoastoupholdthespirit.
3.3.Theprisonersrightsofconjugalvisitsshouldberecognised.
4.4.Asregardtheprisonlabour,marketratesshouldbepaidandprisonlabourcanbetakenresorteven
bylargescaleindustries.
5.5.Asregardsprisoneducationthestructureandcontentoftheeducationmaybemodifiedastomake
theprisonersbetterandusefulcitizensofthecommunity.
6.6.Restitutionasatypeofpunishmentcanbeintroducedasitwouldbenefitboththeoffenderandthe
victim.
7.7.Theconceptofparttimeimprisonmentcanbeexperimentedwithasitwouldenabletheoffenderto
contributehismighttothecommunity.
8.8.Anindependentbureauwithpropercoordinationamongtsthepolice,courtsandreformative
institutionscanbesetuptoprovidefortheaftercareoftheinmates.
9.9.ThepracticeoftorturemustbecurtailedbymakingtheSessionsjudgeresponsiblethroughhis
personalvisitstothejail.AcomplaintsboxmustbecarriedbytheclerkoftheJudgescourt,andtobe
openedonlybytheJudge,shouldbesentonceaweekinordertogivetheprisonersanopportunityto
voicetheirgrievances.
10.EnlightenedprisonerscanbeappointedasmembersofthePrisonsReformsCommittee.
TheProblemofNonImplementation
TheactivistroleadoptedbytheSupremeCourtinenunciatingthevariousprisonersrights,hasundoubtedly
changedtheoutlookoftheIndianlegalsystemtowardstheprisoners.AperusaloftheplethoraofSupreme
22/32
10/16/2016
CourtjudgementsaftertheManekaGandhicaserevealsthattheprisonerisahumanbeingwiththebasic
fundamentalrightsandtheSupremeCourtisthecustodianoftheserights.
Theoretically,theabovepropositioncanundoubtedlybeaccepted.However,theexistingdeplorablestateofthe
Indianprisonsanditsinmates,questionstheextentofpracticalimpactthattheactivistdecisionsoftheSupreme
Courthavemade.AretheSupremeCourtdecisionsmerePaperTigers?
ItissubmittedthatthedirectionsoftheSupremeCourtvisavistherightsoftheprisonersarenotbeing
implementedbytheexecutiveauthoritywhichlabelsthedecisionsasmerePaperTigers.
ThisfactofjudicialactivismoftheSupremeCourtbeingreducedtothestateofanineffectivepractical
instrumentofchangeisreflectedintheSupremeCourtdecisionsitself.InKhatriscase[130],theSupremeCourt
expresseditsanguishatthefactthatthedecisioninKhatoonscasewasnotimplementedintheSateofBihar.
Further,thefactsofVeenaSethiv.StateofBihar[131]revealthattherequirementofKhatoonscasetohavea
regularlistofundertrialsandotheracquittedprisonerswasnotcompliedwith.
ThisshowsthattheexecutiveauthorityisnotkeeninimplementingthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtto
ensuretherightsoftheprisoner.Therearetworeasonsforthis.First,itmustbeappreciatedthatthe
implementingauthorityistheviolatorofprisonersrights,againstwhomthedirectionsaregiven.Hence,they
areindifferentwhileimplementingthosedecisions.
Secondly,itmustbeappreciatedthatinaparticularcasethedirectionisgiventotheviolatingstatewhichisa
partyinthatcase.Thedecisionisnotcirculatedtotherespectiveauthoritiesofeachstate.Asaresult,the
directiongiveninSunilBatrascaseagainstDelhiAdministrationwontbeapplicableinthestateofBiharand
inasubsequentcasetheBiharGovernmentcannotbeheldincontempt.Forexample,inSunilBatrasCasethe
Courtdirectedthatnoprisonerbekeptinironbarsforaprolongedperiod.But,subsequentlyinKadra
PahadiyasCase[132],undertrialchildrenweremadetoworkinchainsduringdaytimeoutsidethejail.The
Governmentwasnotheldupforcontempt.ThisindicatedthenonuniformimplementationoftheSupreme
CourtdecisionsandtherestrictedscopeofArticle141oftheConstitution.Thus,theExecutiveauthoritieshave
madeamockeryofthejudicialactivismoftheSupremeCourtbymakingitanintellectualexercisewithno
practicalimplications.
Conclusion
Thisareaofjurisprudenceisanareawhichshowsalotofpromise.Therehasbeenalotofdevelopmentinthis
areaoverthelast10years.TheSupremeCourthaslaiddownanumberofveryimportantprinciples.
ThedevelopmentsinthisareaareadirectresultoftheSupremeCourtsnewactivistrole.Nolongerconfining
itselftobeingmerelytheinterpreteroftheConstitution,theSupremeCourthasnowadoptedtheroleofbeing
notonlytheGuardianoftheConstitution,butalsoitssoldier,protectingtherightsoftheindividual.Towards
thisendtheCourthasbrokennewground,notonlyintheareaofprisonerrights,butalsoinotherrelatedareas.
TheCourthasvastlyexpandedupontheconceptoflocusstandi,andhasrelaxedmanyofthestricterrulesof
procedure.ThishasallowedforanumberofpetitionsbeingadmittedintotheCourtwhichhaveledtothe
developmentofnewjurisprudence.Forexample,inHussainaraKhatoon[133],theCourtadmittedaPublic
InterestLitigationonthebasisofaletteraddressedtotheCourt.InSheelaBarse[134],theCourtallowedthe
petitionertoapproachtheCourtonbehalfofagroupwhowouldnototherwisehavebeenabletoapproachthe
Court,eventhoughthepetitionerherselfhadnotsufferedanypersonalgrievance.
TheIndianPrisonsystemishighlyantiquated.Itdoesnotincorporatethenewviewofprisoners.InpostWorld
WarIIsocieties,prisonsarelookedatnotasplaceswhereacriminalissenttobeexcludedformsociety,butas
reformatories,wherecriminalsaresenttobereformedandreadmittedtosociety.However,itmustbenotedthat
theNationalHumanRightsCommissionhastakenstepstowardupdatingtheprisonsystem,insubmittinga
draftoutlineforthePrisonsBill,1996.
23/32
10/16/2016
However,aswecanseefromtheexampleoftheTiharjail,manyreformscanbecarriedoutifthewardenwould
bewillingtodoso.TheSupremeCourtshouldtakestepsandissuedirectivestothePrisonwardens,givingthem
objectiveguidelinesuponwhichtheymayimprovetheprisonsystem.
PrisonersrightsinIndiaareviolatedonadailybasis.TheCourtshouldnotconfineitselftotherightsof
prisonersandundertrials,butshouldalsogoastepfurther,andprotecttherightsofthepeoplewhoexperience
policebrutalityonadailybasis.
TheworkdonebytheSupremeCourtisexcellent.TheCourt,startingwithJusticeBhagwatiinMenakaGandhi
v.UnionofIndia[135],hasdisplayedexamplesofbrilliantjudicialcreativity,andhasexerciseditspowerstruly
inthemannerinwhichtheyshouldbeexercised.AnargumenthasbeenputforwardnowthattheCourthas
oversteppeditsboundsinexerciseofitspowers.Thisisafallacy.TheCourtisgiventhepowertoupholdthe
Constitution,andtherecanbenolimitsintheexerciseofsuchpower.Infact,thejudiciaryshouldbegivenmore
powerstocurbtheexcessesoftheGovernment.
Finally,itisonlyprudenttospendamomenttoanalysetheCommonCausejudgement[136].Inthislandmark
judgementJusticeJeevanReddyinafarreachingordergaveaseriesofdirectionsasregardsundertrialsand
pendingcases.TheCourtgaveanelaboratesetofcriteriaunderwhichifatrialhasbeenpendingbeyonda
certainperiodoftimetheconcernedcriminalcourtsweredirectedtoreleasetheaccusedonbailorpersonal
bond.Thefarreachingimplicationsofthiscasecanbeunderstoodkeepinginmindthebacklogofcasesinthe
Indianjudicialsystemandatthesnailspaceatwhichthesecasesaredisposed.Itissubmittedthatthis
judgementisaclassicexampleofjudicialactivisminwhichthejudiciaryhassteppedin,inthelargerinterests
ofjusticeandgoodfaithtoprovideameaningfulremedy.Suchjudgementswouldgoalongwayinmakingthe
criminaljusticesysteminIndiamorehumaneandefficient.
Thepresenttrendisthatevenafterconviction,thejudiciaryhasaneffectivesupervisingrolewithregardtothe
treatmentofprisonersinsidethejail.When,apersonisputinprisonhelosessomeofthefundamentalrights
likethefreedomofmovement,freedomtoformassociationetc.Theprisonersareentitledtoclaimtheresiduary
fundamentalrightseveninsidetheprisons.TheStateisunderaconstitutionalobligationtohonourandprotect
theirrightsincludingtherighttolifeandhumandignity.
SomeofthepronouncementsoftheIndianSupremeCourt,whichemphasisetherightsofconvictsandtheneed
fortreatingtheminconformitywiththoserights,arenotablemilestonesinthepathtowardsfindingnew
penologicalgoalsofacorrectionalandreformativeprisonjusticeadministration.Theydonotlettheprisongates
remainclosedforeveragainstasystemofhumanetreatmentofprisonersandagainsteffectivejudicial
supervisionofsuchasystem.ItwasPrabhakarPandurangwhichinspiredandshowedthewayinspateofcases
onconditionofdetentioninthelateseventiesandearlyeighties.Hoskot,thetwoSunilBatracases,theFrancis
CoraliecaseandtheHussainaraKhatoonseriesareexamplesoftheroleplayedbytheSupremeCourttowards
anewprisonjurisprudence.
Anewjurisprudenceofcorrectionalreformbasedonthereformativeandrehabilitativeaspectshasnowsetin.
Prisonersshouldnotgoouttosocietywithafeelingthattheruleoflawisacasualtywithinprisonwalls.Ithas
nowbeenacceptedthatthepurposeofprisonlifeistotraintheinmatesforapropersociallivingwhereruleof
lawisrespected.Itwillremainillusoryandimpairediftheschemeofprisonregulationisafflictedby
arbitrarinessandinjustice.
Bibliography
Articles:
1)Barnum,DavidG.,Article21andPolicyMakingRoleofCourtsinIndia:AnAmericanPerspective,30
JILI20(1988).
24/32
10/16/2016
2)Baxi,Upendra,RighttoSpeedyTrial:Geese,GanderandJudicialSauce(StateofMaharshtrav.
Champala),25JILI90(1983).
3)Baxi,Upendra,TheSupremeCourtUnderTrial:UndertrialsandtheSupremeCourt,(1980)1SCC
(Jour.)35.
4)Bhagwati,P.N.,HumanRightsintheCriminalJusticeSystem,27JILI198538.
5)Nair,Savdasivan,PrisonJusticeandtheCourt,(1978)CULR336.
6)Rajeev,D,ImpactofMenakaDecision:GrowingDimensionsofIndianConsitutionalLaw,CULR
393.
7)Shankar,RamAnand,SheelaBarsev.UnionofIndia:AMuchNeededReprieve,6StudentAdv.(1994).
8)Singh,Saket,RoleoftheSupremeCourttowardsaNewPrisonJurisprudence,6StudentAdv.(1994).
9)Valson,MC,Rightsoftheprisoner:anevolvingjurisprudence,1995CULR289.
Books:
1)Basu,D.D.,ShorterConstitutionofIndia,PrenticeHallIndia,NewDelhi,1994.
2)Gillian,JohnLewis,CrimnologyandPenology,Routeledge,NewYork,1977.
3)Hidayatullah,ConstitutionalLawofIndia,ArnoldHeinmann,NewDelhi,1984.
4)Jain,MP,IndianConstitutionalLaw,NMTripathi,Bombay,1995.
5)Khan,SLA,JusticeBhagwationFundamentalrightsandDirectivePrinciples,Deep&Deep,NewDelhi,
1986.
6)Khan,SLA,JusticePNBhagwati,Courts,ConstitutionandHumanRights,Deep&Deep,NewDelhi,
1988.
7)KrishnaIyer,V.R.,ANationalPrisonPolicy:ConstitutionalPerspectivesandPragmaticParameters,
VikasPublishingHouse,NewDelhi,1991.
8)Mukharji,P.B.,TheCriticalProblemsoftheIndianConstitution,BombayUniversityPress,Bombay,
1967.
9)Pylee,M.V.,AnIntroductiontotheConstitutionofIndia,VikasPublishingHouse,NewDelhi,1995.
10)Reynaud,A,HumanRightsinPrisons,CouncilofEurope,PublicationSection,Strasbourg,1986.
11)Seervai,H.M.,ConstitutionalLawofIndia:Volume3,N.M.TripathiPvt.Ltd.,Bombay,1996.
12)Singh,MP,VNShuklasConstitutionofIndia,EasternBookCompany,Lucknow,1995.
Digests:
1)A.I.R.Manual.
2)SupremeCourtCasesDecennialDigest,(19801991).
Reports:
25/32
10/16/2016
1)78thLawCommissionReport.
2)AnOutlineoftheProposedIndianPrisonsBill,1996.(NationalHumanRightsCommission).
3)IsmailCommiteeReportonJailReforms,1974.
4)MullaCommiteeReportonJailReforms,1983.
5)TheConstitutionofIndia.
[1]Prisonsystemwhichisamethodofhandlingcriminalswasaresultofhistoricincidents.Itwasnota
carefullythoughtoutplan.ThegreatprisoninRomewasbuiltbyPopeInnocentXin1655.The17thand18th
centurysawtheriseofPrisons,JailsandHousesofCorrectionetc.SeeJohnLewisGilian,Crimnology
andPenology,(NewYork:Routeledge,1977),p.373.
[2]Ibid.,p.381.
[3]Id.
[4]V.K.KrishnaIyer,ANationalPrisonPolicy:ConstitutionalPerspectiveandPragmaticParameters,(New
Delhi:VikasPublishingHouse,1981),p.7.
[5]AIR1950SC27.
[6]Ibid.
[7]AIR1978SC597.
[8]HussainaraKhatoon(I)to(VI)v.HomeSecretary,Bihar(1980)1SCC81,91,93,98,108,&115.
[9]Ibid.
[10]AIR1981SC746.
[11]AIR1986SC1773.
[12]AIR1978SC1675.
[13]TVVatheeswaranv.StateofTamilNadu,AIR1983SC361.
[14]NilabatiBeherav.StateofOrissa,(1993)2SCC746.
[15]RudulShahv.StateofBihar,AIR1983SC1086.
[16]Section10(d)oftheIndianCitizenshipAct,1955prescribesthatacitizenbynaturalisationorregistration
loseshiscitizenshipifhehas,withinfiveyearsofitsaquisition,beensentencedinanycountrytoimprisonment
foratermnotlessthantwoyears.
[17]Bangia,R.K.,LawofTorts,(Allahbad:AllahbadLawAgency,1989),p.120.
[18]Therearetwocasesofthesamefacts.SunilBatra(I)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1978SC1675Sunil
Batra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980SC1579.ThelegalityofSection56ofthePrisonsAct1894was
challengedonthegroundthatitviolatedArticles14and21oftheConstitutionbecauseitempoweredthe
suprintendenttoconferaprisonerinirons,onthegroundthattheimpungnedsectionconferredunguidedand
uncanalisedpoweronthesuperintendent.
26/32
10/16/2016
[19]SunilBatra(I)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1978SC1675.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Therighttofreedomofpersoncomprisesthefollowing:
Article20(1):Protectionagainstexpostfactolaws.
Article20(2):Protectionagainstdoublejeopardy.
Article20(3):Privelegeagainsrselfincrimination.
Article21:Protectionoflifeandcivilliberty.
Article22(1to3):Protectionincaseofarrestand
Article22(4to7):Safeguardsincaseofpreventivedetention.
TheFundamentalRightsunderArticle19areguaranteedonlytocitizens,buttheotherrightsdiscussedabove
areavailabletoallpersons,whethercitizensornot.
[22]SeeSunilBatra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980SC1579.
[23]SeeStateofMaharashtrav.PrabhakarPandurang,AIR1966SC424.
[24]SunilBatra(I)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1970SC1675.
[25]Article39(a)oftheConstitutionreads:Thestateshallsecurethattheoperationofthelegalsystem
promotesjustice,onabasisofequalopportunity,andshallinparticular,providefreelegalaid,bysuitable
legislationorschemesorinanyotherway,toensurethatopportunitiesforsecuringjusticearenotdeniedtoany
citizenbyreasonofeconomicorotherdisbilities.
[26]Article21provides:Nopersonshallbedeprivedofhislifeorpersonallibertyexceptaccordingtothe
procedureestablishedbylaw.
[27]ManekaGandhiv.UnionofIndia,AIR1978SC597.
[28]AIR1950SC27.
[29]Ibid.,p.93perB.K.Mukerjee,J.
[30]AIR1966SC124.
[31]Ibid.,p.425.
[32]Id.
[33]Id.
[34]AIR1974SC2092.
[35]Ibid.
[36]Itwascontendedthateventhedisciplineoftheprisonmusthavetheauthorityoflawandthatthereshould
beasortofaironcurtainbetweentheprisonersandthepolicesothattheconvictsandundertrialprisoners
maybetrulyfreefromtheinfluenceandtyrannyofthepolice.Sinceprisonincludeslandsapurtenentthereto
themembersandofficersofpolicewhowerepostedtoguardthejailfromoutsideoccupiedapartoftheprison
27/32
10/16/2016
andthatmustbepreventedasitiscalculatedtocausesubstantialinterferencewiththeexercisebytheprisoners
oftheirfundamentalrights.Section3(1)ofthePrisonersAct1894definesprisontomeananyjailorplaceused
permanentlyortemporarilyforthedetentionoftheirprisoners,includingalllandsandbulidingsapartment
thereto.
[37]Supran.23,perChandrachud,J.atp.2095.
[38]Id.,p.2097.
[39]AIR1974SC2092.
[40]Ibid.,p.2096.
[41]AIR1963SC1295.ThepetitionerKharakSinghhadbeenchargedinadacoitycasebutwasreleasedas
therewasnoevidenceagainsthim.UndertheU.P.PoliceRegualtionsthepoliceopenedahistorysheetforhim
andhewaskeptunderpolicesurveillencewhichincludedsecretpicketingofhishousebythepoliceand
verificationofhismovementsandactivities.TheSupremeCourtheldthiswasaninvasiononthepetitioners
personalliberty.
[42]FourthAmendmentreadsasfollows:Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,housepapers
affectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandsiezures,shallnotbeviolatedandnowarrantshallissue,butupon
probablecause,supportedbyoathandaffirmation,andparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearched,andthe
personsorthingstobesiezed.
FourteenthAmendmentreadsasfollows:AllpersonsbornornaturalisedintheUnitedStatesandsubjectto
thejurisdictionthereofarecitizensoftheU.S.andofthestatewhereintheyreside.Nostateshallmakeor
enforceanylawwhichshallabridgethepriveledgesandimmunitiesofthecitizensoftheU.S.norshallanystate
depriveanypersonoflife,orlibertywithoutthedueprocessoflawnodelaytoanypersonwithinits
jurisdictiontheequalprotectionoflaws.
[43]AIR1963SC1295.
[44]AIR1978SC597.
[45]AIR1978SC1594.Foracriticalcommentonthiscase,seeG.SadasivanNair,PrisonJusticeandthe
Court,(1978)CULR336.
[46]Ibid.
[47]Ibid.
[48]Ibid.,p.1517.
[49]Ibid.
[50]AIR1981SC746.Thepetitioner,aBritishnationalwasarrestedanddetainedinCentralJail,Tihar.She
preferredapetitionintheSupremeCourtforawritofHabeousCorpuschallengingherdetention.Herpetition
wasrejectedwiththeresultthatsheconinuedtoremainindetentionintheTiharJail.Whileunderdetention,the
petitionerexperiencedconsiderabledifficultyinhavinginterviewwithherlawyerandthemembersofher
family.Herdaughter,agedfiveyears,wasallowedtomeetheronlyonceamonth,althoughachildoftender
age.
[51]Ibid.,p.750perBhagwati,J.
[52]Ibid.,p.753perBhagwati,J.
28/32
10/16/2016
[53]Ibid.,p.754.
[54]P.N.Bhagwati,HumanRightsintheCriminalJusticeSystem,27JILI1atp.25(1985).
[55]AIR1966SC424.
[56]AIR1950SC27.
[57]AIR1970SC1318.
[58]AIR1978SC597.
[59]Ibid.
[60]In1980,theGovernmentofIndiaappointedtheMullaCommitteeeonJailReforms.JusticeA.N.Mulla
wastheChairmanoftheCommittee.Also,IsmailCommitteewasappointedinTamilNadu.
[61]SunilBatra(I)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR19781675SunilBatra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980
SC1579.
[62]PrisonsAct1894,Section30reads:1.Everyprisonerundersentenceofdeathshall,immediatelyonhis
arrivalintheprisonaftersentence,besearched,orbyorderof,thejailandallarticlesshallbetakenfromhim
whichthejailordeemsdangerousorinexpedienttocarryinhispossession.
2.Everysuchprisonershallbeconfinedinacellapartfromalltheotherprisoners,andshallbeplacedbyday
andnightunderthechargesoftheguard.
[63]Id.,Section56reads:WhenevertheSuperintendentconsidersitnecessary(withreferenceeithertothe
stateoftheprisonorthecharacteroftheprisoners)forthesafecustodyofanyprisonersthattheyshouldbe
confinedinirons,hemay,subjecttosuchrulesandinstructionsasmaybelaiddownbytheInspectorGeneral
withthesanctionoftheStateGovernment,soconfinehim.
[64]SunilBatra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980SC1579,perDesai,J.atp.1727.
[65]SunilBatra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980SC1579,atp.1594.
[66]Ibid.,p.1599.
[67]Ibid.ThisaspecthasbeenspeciallyhighlightedbyJusticeKrishnaIyer.
[68]TheCourttooksupportfromthecaseofCoffinv.Richard,143F.2d443atp.445wheretheCourtof
Appealstated:
Thegovernmenthastheabsoluterighttoholdprisonersforoffencesagainstitbutitalsohasthecorrelative
dutytoprotectthemagainstassault,toinjuryfromanyquarterwhilesoheld.Aprisonerisentitledtothewritof
habeauscorpuswhen,thoughlawfullyincustody,heisdeprivedofsomerighttowhichheislawfullyentitled
eveninhisconfinementfordeprivationofwhichservestomakehisimprisonmentmoreburdensomethanthe
lawallowsorcurtailshislibertytoagreaterextentthanthelawpermits.
[69]SunilBatra(II)v.DelhiAdministration,AIR1980SC1579.
[70]HussainaraKhatoon(I)to(VI)v.HomeSecretary,Bihar(1980)1SCC81,91,93,98,108,&115.Seealso
Poolpandiv.Supt,.(1992)3SCC259.
[71](1980)1SCC81.
29/32
10/16/2016
[72](1980)1SCC91.
[73](1980)1SCC93.
[74](1980)1SCC98.
[75]MHHoskotv.StateofMaharashtra,(1978)3SCC544:AIR1978SC1548.
[76](1980)1SCC108.
[77](1980)1SCC115.
[78](1983)2SCC104:AIR1982SC1167.
[79]StateofPunjabv.SarwanSingh,(1981)3SCC34:AIR1981SC1054SrinivasGopalv.UnionTerritory
ofArunachalPradesh,(1988)4SCC36:AIR1988SC1729KiranBedi&anr.v.TheCommissionofInquiry
&anr.,AIR1989SC714.
[80]KadraPahadiyav.StateofBihar,(1983)2SCC104:AIR1982SC1167Mohd.SalimKhanv.Stateof
UP,(1982)2SCC347:AIR1982SC1096VeenaSethiv.StateofBihar,(1982)2SCC583SantBirv.Stateof
Bihar,(1982)3SCC131:AIR1982SC1470YogendraKumarv.DelhiAdministration,(1982)3SCC506
MathewAreeparnatilv.StateofBihar(1985)2SCC102.
[81]AbdulRehmanAntulayv.RSNayak(1992)1SCC225:AIR1992SC1701.
[82]StateofA.P.v.Pavithran,AIR1990SC1266.
[83]MangiLalv.StateofRajasthan,(1988)Cr.L.J.1188.
[84]Trivenibenv.StateofGujarat,(1990)GLJ1810(SC)cf.,Basu,DurgaDas,Commentaryonthe
ConsitutionofIndia,VolumeD.
[85]AIR1987SC149.
[86]StateofPunjabv.KailashNath,AIR1989SC558.
[87]Mangilalv.StateofRajasthan,(1990)1JT74(S.C.).
[88]Agarwalv.Vasantraj,AIR1988SC1106.
[89]SeegenerallySupremeCourtLegalAidCommitteev.UnionofIndia,(1994)6SCC731KartarSinghv.
StateofPunjab,(1994)3SCC569BiswanathPrasadSinghv.StateofBihar,(1994)Supp.(3)SCC735RD
Upadhyayv.StateofAndhraPradesh,(1996)3SCC422StateofPunjabv.AjaibSingh,(1995)2SCC486.
[90]SheelaBarsev.UnionofIndia,AIR1986SC1773.
[91]HussainaraKhatoonv.StateofBihar,AIR1979SC1360Babuv.StateofUP,AIR1978SC527.
[92](1989)4SCC62:AIR1989SC2299.
[93]StateofMaharshtrav.ChampalalPunjajiShah,(1981)3SCC610AIR1981SC1675.
[94]AIR1986SC289.
[95](1978)4SCC494:AIRSC1675.
[96]AlsoseeHarbansSinghv.StateofUP,1991Supp(2)SCC507:AIR1991SC531.
30/32
10/16/2016
[97]DBMPatnaikv.StateofAP,(1975)3SCC185:AIR1974SC2092.
[98]CharlesSobhrajv.DelhiAdministration,(1978)4SCC104:AIR1978SC1514.
[99]Munnav.StateofUP,(1982)1SCC545:AIR1982SC806SheelaBarsev.StateofMaharshtra,(1983)
2SCC96:AIR1983SC378SheelaBarsev.UnionofIndia,(1986)3SCC596:AIR1986SC1773Also
KishoreSinghv.StateofRajasthan,(1981)1SCC603:AIR1982SC625Rakeshv.Supt.,CentralJail,New
Delhi,(1981)1SCC420:AIR1981SC760RamaMurthyv.StateofKarnataka,(1997)2SCC642.
[100](1994)3SCC569seealsoDKBasuv.StateofWB,(1997)1SCC.
[101](1981)1SCC622.
[102](1981)1SCC635AIR1981SC928.
[103](1990)3SCC119.
[104]PremShankarv.DelhiAdministration,(1980)3SCC526:AIR1980SC1535alsoseeStateof
Maharashtrav.RavikantS.Patil,(1991)2SCC373.
[105]AeltemishReinv.UnionofIndia,(1988)4SCC54:AIR1988SC1768.SeealsoInRe:MPDwivedi,
(1996)4SCC152CitizensforDemocracyv.StateofAssam,(1995)3SCC743.
[106](1973)1SCC20:AIR(1973)SC947.
[107](1980)2SCC684:AIR1980SC898.
[108]Deenav.UnionofIndia,(1983)4SCC645AIR1983SC1155.
[109](1983)2SCC68AIR1983SC361.
[110](1983)2SCC344AIR1983SC465.
[111](1988)4SCC574.
[112]DayaSinghv.UnionofIndia,(1991)3SCC61AIR1991SC1548.
[113]A.I.R.1974SC1143.
[114]A.I.R.1981SC928.
[115](1986)2SCC401:AIR1986SC991.ThiscasefollowedHussainaraKhatoon(IV)v.HomeSecretary,
Bihar,(1980)1SCC98MHHoskotv.StateofMaharashtra,(1978)3SCC544Khatri(II)v.StateofBihar,
(1981)1SCC627.SeealsoKadraPahadiyav.StateofBihar,(1983)2SCC104.
[116]SeealsoDr.JainendrakumarVijaykumarBadjatev.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1990SC1224.
[117]AIR1981SC928.
[118]AIR1983SC1086.SeealsoSebastianHongrayv.UnionofIndia,AIR1984SC571.
[119](1997)6SCC243.
[120]SeeArt.51(e).
[121]SeeS.160(1).
31/32
10/16/2016
[122]SeeReportoftheNationalExpertCommitteeonWomenPrisoners(19861987),publishedbythe
GovernmentofIndia,MinistryofHumanResourcesDevelopment,pp.312320.
[123]AIR1980SC1579.
[124]SunilBatrav.UnionofIndia,AIR1980SC1579.
[125]AIR1977SC1926.
[126]Id.,at1928.
[127]Rudovsky,David,TheRightsofPrisoners,SimonandShuster,NewYork,1976,p.25.
[128]Id.,atp.35.
[129]ThisreportisquotedfromGaur,K.D.,HumanRightsofPrisoners:SuggestionsforPrisonReform,13
CULR393(1987).
[130]AIR1974SC1143.
[131]AIR1983SC339.Inthiscase,theundertrialprisonersweredeclaredinsaneduringthetrialandkeptin
theCentralJail.Lateron,someweredeclaredtobesanebutduetothecallousattitudeoftheauthoritiesthey
werenotreleasedfor19to37years,evenaftertheiracquittal.
[132]AIR1981SC939.
[133](1980)1SCC81.
[134](1983)2SCC96:A.I.R.1983SC378.
[135]A.I.R.1978SC597.
[136]CommonCause(ARegisteredSociety)v.UnionofIndia,JT1996(4)SC701.
Printthis
prisonerrights
SearchLegalsutra!
SearchWebsite
Search
Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcase
notesandmore!2010|PoweredbyWordPressandMystiquethemebydigitalnature
33queriesin1.18seconds(3.98M)
GotoTop
32/32

Legalsutra - Law Students' Knowledge-Base - Law School Projects, Moot Court Memorials, Class and Case Notes and More! - Prisoner Rights PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Legalsutra - Law Students' Knowledge-Base - Law School Projects, Moot Court Memorials, Class and Case Notes and More! - Prisoner Rights PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10/16/2016

S-ar putea să vă placă și